Saguna Brahman and Krama Mukti in Shankara’s Advaita

Vedanta
Introduction
Note: This is the first of a three-part article series. Click below for the subsequent parts:

[Part 2] [Part 3] [Part 4]

While it is quite well established that the ultimate reality (paramArtha tattva / parabrahman) in
Shankara’s advaita vedanta is formless and devoid of any qualities (i.e., nirguNa), this system of
philosophy accepts the reality of differences at a lower tier of truth. Hence, although the reality of the
universe, multiplicity of the individual souls (jIvAtmas), and the auspicious qualities attributed to
the paramAtman such as unlimited lordship, creatorship, freedom from sin, perfection, possession of a
beautiful form etc are ultimately negated in the higher realm of truth called “pAramArthika dashA”, these
are however accepted in the lower/empirical/worldly realm called “vyAvahArika dashA”.

It is noteworthy here that the empirical realm, to which belong such differences as “Ishvara vs. jIva”,
“prescribed actions vs. prohibited actions” etc., is not to be dismissed right away as something totally
irrelevant. Striving only from this lower realm through practices conducive to dharma does the individual
soul obtain, through Ishvara’s grace, knowledge of the ultimate reality. Moreover, these differences are
important for determining right conduct. After all, advaitins would agree that it is wrong for a woman to
cohabit with someone other than her husband by citing non-difference!

On similar lines, saguNa brahman and upAsana on saguNa brahman are absolute within
the vyAvahArika-realm in this advaitic system of philosophy. They are not to be determined by the
individual’s whims and fantasies that are poorly justified by citing ultimate non-difference.

Through the rest of the articles concerning Shankara and Advaita in this blog, we have established the
following fact: In the vyAvahArika dashA of advaita, Sriman Narayana/Lord Vishnu alone is the saguNa-
brahman/Ishvara who is in essence the same parabrahman but with the upAdhis of shuddha-sattva.

We next proceed to reinforce further the irrefutable fact that Lord Vishnu alone, among the trinity, is
accepted as the saguNa brahman in Shankara’s thought. We do so by disproving the following incorrect
claims about Shankara’s advaita and this AcArya’s prasthAna-trayI-bhAShya propagated by some
ignorant lay people on the internet:

Some, such as the aforementioned person, are now resorting to newer and more innovative ways to
“explain away” evidence available in the public domain such as our blog here against their pet
theories.To their frustration, it is crystal-clear that an honest reading of the prasthAna-trayI bhAShya
lends no support to either the “Shanmata” theory or to any of their anti-Vishnu pro-Shaiva inclinations.
One can be quite sure that they, in all honesty, themselves know this deep in their hearts. Perhaps due
to their attachment to their popularity, fame, their reputation of infallibility built up among their cohorts
etc., they find it hard to embrace the truth in front of the public. How can they indeed, for example, state
publicly that they have spent decades of their life believing in and publicly practising and preaching an
incorrect doctrine? To comfort themselves from this heartbreak and to retain their reputation built on
falsehood, they have now resorted to the following bizarre claims to trick the minds of their followers:

1. “Vishnu” in “viShNoH paramaM padaM” does not refer to any specific deity, in particular
the shankha-cakra-gadA-dhArin. The same holds for “nArAyaNa” in “nArAyaNaH paro ‘vyaktAt” and
“vAsudeva” in “paramArthatattvaM vAsudevAkhyaM”

2. The prashnopaniShad bhAShya shows Rudra and Vishnu as forms of prANa and that they are
“mere functionaries”.

3. Mukti in advaita has absolutely nothing to do with entering Vishnu’s loka called “vaikuNTha”.
Dispelling these above incorrect notions, we shall strengthen the position already established by our
other write-ups. Here is a summary:

1. “Vishnu” and “nArAyaNa” in “viShNoH paramaM padaM” and “nArAyaNaH paro avyaktAt”
refers to the popular Lord Vishnu alone and none else. Not only is this evident from the works of
Sarvajnatman, Chitsukha, and others, but also from Shankara’s commentary themselves.

2. Instances such as “vāsudevākhyaṃ para-brahmābhidheya-bhūtaṃ”, “ahaṃ paraṃ brahma

vāsudevākhyaṃ” etc. identify the parabrahman with names of the saguNa/apara brahman Lord Vishnu
because in essence He is indeed the highest tattva endowed with shuddha-sattva upAdhis. Such
instances do not “prove that for Shankara, Vishnu/Narayana/Vasudeva is not the popular deity but the
formless nirguNa caitanya”, as some people claim.

3. Lord Vishnu, the saguNa-brahman, has an eternal form and an eternal place called “vaikuNTha”
or “saguNa-brahma-loka” to which those who attain liberation through “krama-mukti” reach. By
“eternality”, it is meant that this highest place of Vishnu exist across kalpas. It should be noted here that
we do not contend that these are absolutely eternal in advaita. In advaita, vaikuNTha is also a product
of nescience (avidyAtmaka), though existing beyond the effected universe. They are also said to be
temporary in the pAramArthika level. This is due to the fact that the mukta, upon reaching the
transcendental realm of Vaikuntha will realize his true nature and thus get complete liberation, ending
all experience of duality.

The issue of the prashnopaniShad bhAShya (Rudra and Vishnu)

Persons proclaiming to be vedAntins are now claiming as follows, regarding Shankara’s Bhashya for
Prashnopanishad 2.9, where Rudra and Vishnu are mentioned as the samhAra-kartA and jagat-
pAlaka respecitvely:
...Vishnu (the benign form, as opposed to the valorous form of Rudra) is the Protector of the
world. Since the Creator, Protector and Destroyer are all said to be the forms of Prana we see
that Rudra, named in the mantra itself, Vishnu not named in the mantra as well as the bhashya
but named by Anandagiri, on the implication of the word 'vishnu' are all 'created' ones.
…
The Prana, Hiranyagarbha is the one manifested before them and the Puruṣa is the
Supreme. This Puruṣa is neither the Rdura or Vishnu or Hiranyagarbha (prajapati/prana). In
other words, Rudra and Vishnu are not the Supreme Brahman in this scheme of this
upanishad. Both these entities are within the creation.
…
Just as the Br.up. 1.4.11 talks about the creation of an aspect/mode of Rudra, so too the above
referenced Praṣnopaniṣat mentions the creation of Rudra in the destroyer-function and the
creation of Viṣṇu as the protector-function according to the Śaṇkara bhāṣya as commented by
Ānandagiri.
…
I would like to say here that the editor Sri S.Subrahmanya sastri has taken objection to
Anandagiri's remark and said in turn: the protector is rudra alone going by many vedic passages
such as ghora and aghora, etc. Quite amusingly, the narayanastra site which is promoting the
idea that Shankara is a vaishnava, is vehemently against this editor for his criticizing Anandagiri
and taking away Vishnu's status. It is quite amusing to me because the retention of the vishnu
status will be actually placing vishnu along side the other entities indra, rudra and
surya. Therefore as per that author, Shankara's intention is to say that the protector in that
mantra is vishnu and Anandagiri is correctly expressing Shankara's mind.

What would indeed be quite amusing to the neutral reader is that such persons formally accept that
Subramanya Sastri openly objected to Anandagiri and praise him, and yet try to claim a lineage to
Shankara and Anandagiri! One can see the self-contradictory nature of their claims.
Let us come to the matter at hand. In his explanation, Anandagiri differentiates the forms like rudra,
indra, and the rest of the world from the unique form that Iswara, saguNa brahman, according to advaita.
The former are tAmasa or rAjasa (and hence, not saguNa forms worthy of upAsaNa).
If so, who is saguNa brahman here? That is referenced in the bhAShya itself. Shankara, in reference
to rudra’s role as a destroyer, says, “tejasā vīryeṇa rudro'si saṃharan jagat”. But while referencing
viShNu’s role as a protector, he says “tvameva jagataḥ saumyena rūpeṇa”. Please note this carefully
in the Prasnopanishad Bhashya. Shankara uses the words “tvameva” and “saumyena rUpeNa” to
denote vishNu’s role as a protector.
Note also that as per Shankara’s own Bhashya to Mundaka Upanishad (2.1.4), vishNu has all worlds
as his body, all are his forms:
“vishNu, or ananta, who is the primordial being, who has all the three worlds for His body, and
who is the in-dwelling soul of all the beings" (Mundaka Upanishad bhAShya, 2.1.4).
Note that Shankara uses the term “eSha devo visnuH” in the bhAshya – the usage of “deva” indicates
this is saguNa brahman that is being referred to here. In a response to a comment on the main page of
this blog, we have already refuted the fertile imaginations of unworthy zealots who tried to establish that
this “viShNu” here is not the popular Lakshmipati.
Let us come back to the Prashnopanishad Bhashya at hand. The usage of “tvameva” as opposed to
“tvam” shows that while the Iswara, saguNa brahman, performs certain functions via his vibhUtIs rudra,
indra, etc as indicated by “tejasA vIryeNa rudro’si samharan jagat”, he himself (tvameva)
descends as viShNu, in a form which is pure sattva (saumyena rUpeNa) as opposed to the other
deities whose forms are of rajas and tamas.
The following shruti (Kaivalyopanishad) also supports our explanation of Shankara's and Anandagiri's
statement "tvameva jagataḥ saumyena rūpeṇa" - “viShNvAdirUpeNa” :
sa brahma sa sivah sendrah so'ksarah paramah svarat |
sa eva visnuh sa pranah sa kalo'gnih sa candramah || 1.8 ||
Note that the shruti lists the effects, brahmA, shivaH, indra, etc. and mentions Vishnu,
the jagatkAraNa who is paraH avyaktAt separately. It occurs immediately after identifying paramAtma
as "nIlakaNTha" and "trilocana" as well, so it indicates that this upanishad talks about viShNu only by
those terms. This serves two purposes:
1. Shankara's usage of "tvameva" refers to viShNu directly being saguNa brahman and
"saumyena rUpeNa" referring to an aprAkR^ita divya mangala vigraha that is fit for upAsana.
2. Also indicates that “nIlakaNTha”, “trilocana” etc. in this context refer to viShNu only, as we
stated before.
So, Anandagiri’s TIka shows that on the one hand, duties like destruction, etc performed by Rudra are
acts carried out by viShNu in reality with Rudra as his vibhUti. They are also his forms since the world
is his body. But viShNu carries out protection via his own unique sattva form, ie, saguNa brahman verily
descends for this purpose, as indicated by shankara by the usage of “tvameva soumya rUpeNa” which
Anandagiri explains clearly as “viShNvAdirUpeNa”.
This is further evidenced in Shankara’s bhAshya for the sahasarnAma “bhUta kR^it, bhUta bhR^it” – he
says
bhūtakṛt = rajoguṇaṃ samāśritya viriñcirūpeṇa bhūtāni karotīti bhūtakṛt ; tamoguṇam āsthāya
sa rudrātmanā bhūtāni kṛntati kṛṇoti hinastīti vā bhūtakṛt । ["bhUtakR^it" is one who creates beings
by taking up the quality of rajas, in the body or form of Brahma. It also means one who kills/destroys
beings by standing in the quality of tamas, as the antaryAmin of Rudra.] – note the usage of the words
“viri~ncirUpeNa” and “rudrAtmanA”.
bhūtabhṛt = sattvaguṇam adhiṣṭhāya bhūtāni bibharti pālayati dhārayati poṣayati iti vā bhūtabhṛt
। ["bhUtabhR^it" is one who bears, protects, and nourishes beings by being established in the quality
of Sattva.]- Note the usage of “sattvaguNam adhiShThAya” and no terms like “viShNvAdi rUpeNa” or
“viShNvAtmanA” which may suggest a trimUrti-aikyatva-vAda or trimUrty-uttIrNa-vAda that is resorted
to by such uninformed “vedAntins” like the aforementioned.
At this juncture, it is quite apt to recall Shankara’s statement in the kAryAdhikaraNa of the Brahma Sutra
Bhashya:
“param eva hi brahma viśuddha upādhisaṃbandhaṃ kvacit kaiścit vikāradharmaiḥ
manomayatvādibhiḥ upāsanāya upadiśyamānam aparam iti sthitiḥ”

Here, Anandagiri explains “vishuddhopAdhi” as “sAttvikopAdhivishiShTa”. It is quite well known that

scriptures show that among the trimUrtis, Vishnu alone possesses Shuddha-sattva. Shankara’s
bhAShya to “bhUtakR^it bhUtabhR^it” in the Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya is alone enough to show
that all vedantins accepted this fact originally. This point is enough to show that the saguNa brahman
intended by Shankara and Anandagiri is Lord Vishnu only, as established elsewhere in this blog from
other pramANas within the prasthAna-trayi bhAShyas. Even the popular internet “advaitin” who has
lately been keeping himself busy with poor attempts at “refuting” our blog also concedes that among
the trimUrtis, Vishnu is the one endowed with Sattva guNa (though he bizarrely claims that Rudra
possesses “shuddha-tamas”, not knowing that this amounts to Rudra-nindA as the statement implies
that Rudra does not even possess a speck of sattva!).

The aforementioned persono ignorantly quotes the vishvarUpa adhyAya without knowing it supports
this position. The vishvarUpa shows the worlds as his body and everything in it. While Arjuna refers to
the specific form of vishNu as “saumya” to indicate that this is uniquely sattva, and only possessed by
bhagavAn, who has descended in this unique body with excellent qualities. All 3 bhAShyakAras –
shankara, rAmAnuja and mAdhva – agree to this.
And we must thank him for pointing out the connection between Sri Rudram and the vishvarUpa
adhyAya. This we have ourselves pointed out elsewhere in this blog, that Sri Rudram extols sriman
nArAyaNa only.
There can be many such objections against our position, for which we have fitting and logical answers.
For the reader however, especially one who is new to Shankara’s prasthAna-trayI bhAShyas and the
works of advaitins from Sureshvara to Madhusudana who aligned well with Shankara’s views, a clear
understanding of Shankara’s position on saguNa brahman is necessary.
This is possible through a careful study of the AcArya’s commentaries to the kArya-adhikaraNa and
the jagadvyApAra-adhikaraNa of the brahma sUtra (occurring respectively in third and fourth pAdas of
the fourth adhyAya). We thus proceed to elaborate both in the succeeding section of this article.
The English translations provided here are based on George Thibaut’s work, but we have modified
them accordingly wherever the translation does not do justice to the original in Sanskrit.

Vishnu as Saguna Brahman and Krama-mukti in Shankara’s Brahma Sutra

Bhashya: Part I – The kAryAdhikaraNa section
In this section, the nature of destination of the “devAyana” (path of the deities) described in the
Upanishads is explained. This is the path by which the mukta (liberated jIvAtmA) travels. Shankara
explains that the goal of these muktas is the satya-loka of the four-faced Hiranyagarbha/Brahma. From
there, upon the dissolution of satya-loka at the end of the kalpa, they reach the Supreme abode of
Vishnu which is the abode of krama-mukti. In turn, they achieve final liberation in Vishnu’s abode, which
is the realization of the essential nirguNa nature of saguNa brahman Vishnu, the Lord of the Universe.

Sutra Bhashya, 4.3.7

kāryaṃ bādarirasya gatyupapatteḥ | BBs_4,3.7 |

sa enānbrahma gamayati (chā. 4.15.5) iti atra vicikitsyate - kiṃ kāryam aparaṃ brahma gamayati
āhosvit param eva avikṛtaṃ mukhyaṃ brahma iti /
kutaḥ saṃśayaḥ /
brahmaśabdaprayogāt gatiśruteḥ ca /
tatra kāryameva saguṇam aparaṃ brahma enān gamayati amānavaḥ puruṣa iti bādariḥ ācāryo
manyate /
kutaḥ - asya gati upapatteḥ /
asya hi kāryabrahmaṇo gantavyatvam upapatteḥ /
asya hi kāryabrahmaṇo gantavyatvam upapadyate pradeśavattvāt /
na tu parasmin brahmaṇi gantṛtvaṃ gantavyatvaṃ gatiḥ vā avakalpate /
sarvagatatvāt pratyagātmatvāt ca gantṛṇām // 7 //

The issue raised in this sUtra is – where do the knowers of Brahman go via the path of the gods? As
stated just earlier, Shankara says it is the satya-loka, the world of “brahmA” (masculine gender)and not
the Supreme Brahman itself. The Supreme cannot be reached directly by the act of going for it is
everywhere and is the innermost Self of all. To that, Shankara replies thus:

Sutra Bhashya, 4.3.8

viśeṣitatvāc ca | BBs_4,3.8 |

brahmalokāngamayati te teṣu brahmalokeṣu parāḥ parāvato vasanti' (bṛ. 6.2.15) iti ca śrutyantare
viśeṣitatvāt kāryabrahmaviṣaya eva gatiḥ iti gamyate /
nahi bahuvacanena viśeṣaṇaṃ parasmin brahmaṇi avakalpate /
kārye tu avasthābheda upapatteḥ saṃbhavati bahuvacanam /
lokaśrutiḥ api vikāragocarāyāma eva saṃniveśaviśiṣṭāyāṃ bhogabhūmāvau āñjasī /
gauṇī tu anyatra 'brahmaiva loka eṣa samrāṭ' ityādiṣu /
adhikaraṇa adhikartavyanirdeśaḥ api parasmin brahmaṇi anāñjasaḥ syāt /

tasmāt kāryaviṣayameva idaṃ nayanam // 8 //

That the soul's going has for its object the effected Brahma (karyabrahmaviShaya), we conclude from
another scriptural passage also which qualifies Brahman in a certain way, 'He leads them to the worlds
of Brahman; in these worlds of Brahman they live for ever and ever' (Bri. Up. VI, 2, 15). For it would be
impossible to qualify nirguNa brahman (parasmin brahmaNi) by means of the plural number ('worlds');
while the plural number may be applied to the effects of nirguNa brahman under mAya (kAryE) which
may abide in different conditions like Brahma, etc (avasthAbhEda).--The term 'world' also can directly
denote only some place of enjoyment falling within the sphere of effects and possessing the quality of
being entered into, while it must be understood in a metaphorical sense in passages such as 'Brahman
is that world '(Bri. Up. IV, 4, 23).--And also what the text says concerning an abode and some one
abiding within it ('in these worlds of Brahman,' &c.), cannot be directly understood of the highest
Brahman.--For all these reasons the leading of the souls has the effected Brahma (kAryaviSaya api
brahmasabdo) for its goal.

nanu kāryaviṣaye api brahmaśabdo na upapadyate samanvaye hi samastasya jagato janmādikāraṇaṃ

sthāpitam iti /

Here, the stage is set for the next sutra. Since Shankara is effectively saying that the knowers of
Brahman reach Brahma, the pUrvapakSa here is – but bAdarAyaNa says that Brahman is the cause
of origination of the world, etc. Since the four-faced Brahma does not possess these characteristics,
how can he be referred to as Brahman in the pramANas quoted by Shankara such as 'He leads them
to the worlds of Brahman’, having accepted that the plural usage means it refers to the effected
brahma?
atra ucyate -

Sutra Bhashya, 4.3.9

sāmīpyāt tu tadvyapadeśaḥ | BBs_4,3.9 |

tu śabda āśaṅkā vyāvṛttyarthaḥ /

parabrahmasāmīpyāt aparasya brahmaṇaḥ tasmin api brahmaśabdaprayogo na virudhyate /
param eva hi brahma viśuddha upādhisaṃbandhaṃ kvacit kaiścit vikāradharmaiḥ
manomayatvādibhiḥ upāsanāya upadiśyamānam aparam iti sthitiḥ // 9 //

The word 'but' indicates the setting aside of the doubt.--As Brahma, who is not para or saguNa brahman
(aparasya brahmaNa) is in proximity (sAmIpyAt) to the highest brahman (parabrahman), there is
nothing unreasonable in the word 'Brahman' being applied to the former (Brahma) also.

Special note: “aparasya brahmaNa” denotes Brahma, with the term “aparasya” meaning, either lower
than saguNa brahman, or not saguNa brahman.
And now, the question will arise. How can one say that the highest (parabrahman) is in close proximity
to Brahma since it is impossible to say nirguNa vastu is “close to anyone”? To that Shankara now
answers by giving the definition of “Parabrahman” in the classical advaita way.

For when nirguNa Brahman (paraM eva hi brahma) is, for the purposes of pious meditation, described
as possessing certain effected qualities--such as consisting of mind and the rest--which qualities
depend on its connexion with certain pure limiting adjuncts; then it is what we call apara or lower
(saguNa) Brahman.

Some who are opposed to this interpretation may make the following remark:

Purvapaksha - Brahma is said to be proximate to Parabrahman because he is saguna brahman who

is rooted in Nirguna brahman. (Here, our opponent may explain "sAmIpyat" as the "ati-nikaTa" used
by sarvaj~nAtman to claim brahma is saguNa brahman.)

To the above, our reply is as follows:

Siddhantha - this view does not stand. Firstly, Brahma is ruled out as saguNa brahman by Shankara
in the viShNu-sahasranAma-bhAShya for "bhUta kR^it" where he explains brahma to be under rajo-
guNa upAdhIs. Whereas, Anandagiri's explanation for the BSB "param eva hi vishuddha-upAdhi
saMbandhaM" shows that Ishvara, as saguNa-brahman, has shuddha-sattva upAdhis. Thus
interpreting brahma as saguNa brahman by claiming "sAmIpya" means nearness of Nirguna brahman
would contradict. Secondly, if brahmA is saguNa brahman "rooted" in higher nature of nirguNa, it would
make Shankara’s bhAShya for the next sUtra nonsensical, where the AcArya says "after pralaya, they
along with hiraNyagarbha proceed to the param parishuddham viShNoH paramaM padam". Because,
here another "paramaM padam" is used which would make the previous "parabrahmasAmIpya"
redundant. It is also not feasible to interpret viShNu as nirguna brahman here if you
accept sarvaj~nAtnan's "ati-nikaTa" statement. Because sarvaj~nAtman explains "paramaM padam"
as ati-nikaTa nirguna tattva and murAreH (which he used instead of vishNu) to refer to saguNa
brahman. Hence, that would contradict your own stand.

Special note: One might question how we interpret “aparasya brahmaNaH” as brahma and “aparam”
here as saguNa brahman. The answer is because the context clearly warrants such a translation.
Firstly, Shankara said that “aparasya brahmaNaH” is not verily the highest Brahman but is called so
because of close proximity. Hence, “aparasya” means that Brahma is not the highest Brahman which
has dual nature of saguNa and nirguNa. Then, Shankara takes up the pUrvapakSa as to how the
highest Brahman can be present in close proximity since it is a nirguNa vastu. He says it is because
this nirguNa brahman becomes saguNa under upAdhIs for the sake of upAsana. Hence, to differentiate
nirguNa and saguNa brahman, he uses the term “aparam”. Here, he is differentiating the higher and
lower natures of the supreme reality, viz., saguNa and nirguNa.

Since “aparasya brahmaNaH” has already been described as proximate and hence different from
Brahman, and it has also been said that nirguNa vastu does not take up residence anywhere, the
“param” and ”aparam” here only denotes the dual natures of the highest Brahman. Otherwise, if
“aparam” here is taken as Brahma, we get the meaning “nirguNa brahman has become Brahma which
is in close proximity to nirguNa brahman” which makes no sense since the crux of the siddhAntha is
that nirguNa vastu does not take up abodes anywhere and cannot be reached.

Having established that the souls reach Brahma who is in proximity with saguNa brahman, Shankara
considers the pUrvapakSa that Brahma Loka is subject to birth and death and hence cannot be the
abode of no return, thus:

nanu kāryaprāptau anāvṛttiśravaṇaṃ na ghaṭate /

na hi parasmāt brahmaṇaḥ anyatra kvacit nityatāṃ saṃbhāvayanti /
darśayati ca devayānena pathā prasthitānām anāvṛttim /
'etena pratipadyamānā imaṃ mānavamāvartaṃ nāvartante' (chā. 4.15.6) iti teṣām iha na punarāvṛttiḥ
asti 'tayordhvamāyannamṛtatvameti' (chā. 8.6.6), ka. 6.16) iti cet /
atra brūmaḥ -
But with the assumption of (attainment of) effected Brahma (kAryaprAptau) there does not agree what
scripture says about the souls not returning; for there is no permanence anywhere apart from the
highest Brahman, ie, nirguNa vastu (parasmAt brahmaNah). And scripture declares that those who
have set out on the road of the gods do not return, 'They who proceed on that path do not return to the
life of man' (Kh. Up. IV, 15, 6); 'For them there is no return here' (Bri. Up. VI, 2, 15); 'Moving upwards
by that a man reaches immortality' (Kh. Up. VIII, 6, 5).

Special Note: This sets the stage for the next sUtra. The pUrvapakSha raised here is, “Having
established that the knowers of Brahman reach Brahma, is it not contradictory to the fact that Brahma’s
worlds are mentioned in texts like the Gita to be subject to rebirth? What of the fact that these souls
traversing the devAyana do not return?

Sutra Bhashya, 4.3.10

kāryātyaye tadadhyakṣeṇa sahātaḥ param abhidhānāt | BBs_4,3.10 |

kāryabrahmalokapralayapratyupasthāne sati tatra eva utpannasamyagdarśanāḥ santaḥ tat

adhyakṣeṇa hiraṇyagarbheṇa sahātaḥ paraṃ pariśuddhaṃ viṣṇoḥ paramaṃ padaṃ pratipadyanta iti /
kramamuktiḥ anāvṛttyādi śruti abhidhānebhyo abhyupagantavyā /
na hi āñjasa eva gatipūrvikā paraprāptiḥ saṃbhavati iti upapaditam // 10 //

When the reabsorption of the effected Brahma’s world (kAryabrahmaloka) draws near, the souls in
which meanwhile perfect knowledge has sprung up proceed, together with Hiranyagarbha (the
aforesaid Brahma) the ruler of that world, to 'what is higher than that i.e. to the pure (as it is beyond
prakrtri) highest place (as it is the abode of saguNa brahman) of Vishnu (saguNa Ishvara). This is the
release by successive steps which we have to accept on the basis of the scriptural declarations about
the non-return of the souls. For we have shown that the highest state of pAramArthika sath
(para) cannot be directly reached (paraprAptiH sambhavati iti upapaditam) by the act of going (na hi
āñjasa eva gatipūrvikā).

Special note: Everything is self explanatory. Even shrI rAmAnuja says upAsakas first reach Brahma’s
abode and then travel to srI vaikunta after pralaya, which is moksha sthAna. In the last line,
“paraprAptiH” most definitely refers to the paramArthika sath or nirguNa brahman since Shankara
already established that nirguNa vastu as it is, cannot be in proximity to Brahma, rather it is saguNa
brahman, which is nirguNa brahman under sattva upAdhi. So, there can be no “going” to nirguNa
brahman.

Some object here that in advaita-bhAShyas, “viShNoH paramaM padam” refers only to the nirguNa
state and has nothing to do with Lakshmipati-Chaturbhuja Vishnu, the deity of the Vaishnavas. We will
now show why they are wrong:

1. Shankara’s qualification of “Vishnu” as “vAsudevAkhya” in Kathopanishad 1.3.9 itself is enough

to stop such nonsensical claims. There is only one entity, the caturbhuja Vishnu that has “vAsudeva”
as samAkhya in all shruti, smR^iti, purANa, nighaNTus, etc. Amarakosha says “(1\.1\.42) padmanAbho
madhuripurvAsudevastrivikramaH (1\.1\.43) devakInandanaH shauriH shrIpatiH puruShottamaH”.
Shruti says “brahmaNyo devakIputraH brahmaNyo madhusUdanaH” (Narayanopanishad).

2. You only have “vAsudevAkhyaH” “viShNvAkhyaH” and “nArAyaNAkhyaH” in Shankara

Bhashyas, referring to none but shrIpati as per texts from shruti to lexicons (nikaNDu-s) quoted above.
One does not see “IshvarAkhyaH” “shivAkhyaH” “mahAdevAkhyaH” “rudrAkhyaH”
“parameshvarAkhyaH” etc. in Shankara’s Bhashyas while referring to Brahman.

3. Statements by other advaitins where they have replaced “viShNu” in “viShNoH paramaM
padaM” with “murAri”, “nR^isiMha” etc:

a. Mangala-shloka in Sarvajnatman’s saMkShepa shArIraka and the commentary of Shri

Ramatirtha etc. which we have already explained here.
 b. As we have already explained here, agnicit puruShottama mishra, another
commentator to Sarvajnatman’s above work, says that “Vishnu’s supreme state” refers to the ultimate
state of sattvopAdhi-vishiShTa-jagatpAlaka-saguNa-brahman:

“atra murAriH sattvapradhAna-mAyA-pratibiMbitaM caitanyaM jagatpAlakaM viShNvAkhyaM tasya

paramaM mAyAsaMbandharahitaM bimbAtmakaM padaM padyate gamyate j~nAyate vA
mumukShubhiriti tat…”

(It must however be stressed that since Sarvajnatman describes the paramaM padaM as “ati-nikaTam”,
it refers only to the nirguNa state that is the very essence of the paramAtman that is “ati-nikaTa” (very
near) due to its presence as the antaryAmin. This is by no means weakens our side. Nor is this a
contradicting evidence to what we have claimed so far. In other places, “paramaM padam” both the
eternal realm as well as the supreme nirguNa condition, as Shankara holds in Gita Bhashya 18.62 etc.)

c. Citsukha in the mangaLa-shloka to

his bhAShyabhAvaprakAshika praises “nR^isiMhasya yogagamyaM paraM padam”.

4. “paramaM padaM” is explained by Shankara (Katha Upanishad Bhashya, 1.3.9)

as “prakR^iShTam padaM sthAnaM satattvamityetat”, which indicates both an abode as well as the
state attained therein due to the grace of Ishvara, Vishnu. We shall show this in detail in the next section.
The reader who is in a hurry can read up the following sections in Shankara’s prasthAna-trayI bhAShyas
and other advaitic works to get a quick and accurate impression:

a. Chandogya Upanishad Bhashya, 3.13.7 followed by 3.12.6.

b. Brahma Sutra Bhashya, 1.1.24.

i.Anandagiri/Govindananda’s comments therein.

c. Brahma Sutra Bhashya, 4.4.18-20.

d. Gita Bhashya, 15.4, 15.6, 18.62.

i.Anandagiri’s gloss to 18.62 above.

e. Madhusudana Sarasvati’s Advaita Siddhi and Gauda Brahmananda Saraswati’s Laghu

Chandrika, Second paricCheda, brahmaNo nirAkAratva nirUpaNa (We can’t help but thank the person
who attempted to refute us by quoting this text. We shall show later how this person totally
misinterpreted this section).

f. Madhusudana Sarasvati in Gudhartha Dipika, 8.15-16 and 7.24.

g. Sridhara Swami in Srimad Bhagavata commentary, 2.5.39.

h. Maheshvara Tirtha’s explanation of “brahmaloka” as Vaikuntha loka in rAmAyaNa

bhAShya, bAla kANDa, prathama (first) sarga.

i. Maheshvara Tirtha’s explanation of jaTAyu mokSha in AraNya kANDa.

j. Narayana Bhattathiri’s description of Vaikuntha-pada in Narayaneeyam 7.4, and Desha

Mangala’s commentary.

5. Lastly, it is utter hypocrisy on the part of those who claim that “umAsahAyaM
parameshvaraM” in kaivalya upaniShad refers to umApati-shiva alone, and nowhere in the Upanishads
is Lakshmipati Vishnu mentioned! (See this article for our explanation of the Kaivalya Upanishad verse)

(Click here for the second part titled: “Vishnu as Saguna Brahman and Krama-mukti in
Shankara’s Brahma Sutra Bhashya: Part II – The jagad-vyApAra-adhikaraNa section”)
Saguna Brahman and Krama Mukti in Shankara's Advaita
Vedanta - Part 2
Introduction
The second (current article), third (click here), and fourth (click here) parts of this article series (click
here for the first part) shows that Shankara’s system of advaita vedAnta as enunciated in his prasthAna
trayI bhAShya-s has nothing in conflict with and in fact strongly supports the notion of an eternal abode
called Vaikuntha where those who reach do not return. We shall establish this by showing the following:

1. There are very clear statements of Shankara to support the theory of an eternal loka for saguNa
brahman. In addition, there are several supporting statements that when strung together lend further
support. It can be shown that there is no room for these to be taken figuratively to mean something
else.

2. In addition, an analysis of key sections in Shankara’s Gita and Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashyas
reveals that this eternal loka belongs to Lord Vishnu, and that those who are on the path of no return
reach that place.

3. There are innumerable statements by various advaitins such as Sridhara, Madhusudana

Sarasvati, Gauda Brahmananda, Maheshvara Tirtha, Narayana Bhatta, Desha Mangala, etc. to
show advaita’s acceptance of Vishnu’s Vaikuntha of the aforementioned nature as a realm
beyond saMsAra.

4. To deny the existence of Vishnu’s loka that is beyond the satya loka and not subject to
dissolution is tantamount to saying that Advaitins are aprAmANika-s who ignore the shAstra.

5. Even non-Vaishnava commentators such as Sayana explain “viShNoH paramaM padaM” as a

reference to Vaikuntha-loka. Moreover according to Sayana, the R^ik where this mantra occurs is about
the popular deity Vishnu who took trivikrama avatAra, thus establishing that “viShNu” in “viShNoH
paramaM padaM” is the popular Lord Vishnu only.

We need to clarify an important stance one has to take while analyzing the commentaries by Advaitins
to shruti and smR^iti. There are adversaries who claim such things as:

“...whatever has been stated by Madhusudana in his commentary to the Bhagavadgita or any
other commentator for any other work like the SrimadbhAgavatam on the topic of ‘eternal loka’,
stands overruled by the above statement of the Advaita Siddhi.”

(Note: These “other commentators” that this adversary refers to are Sridhara and Maheshvara Tirtha,
who are also advaitins to the core.)

It is requested that readers be not held at sway by the above line of thinking while reading this article.
Here is our reply to those who resort to such modes of arguing: It is absurd to claim that Madhusudana
Sarasvati’s words in Advaita Siddhi overrules his own Bhagavad Gita commentary, or that advaitins
who commented on the Ramayana/Bhagavata compromised the core tenets of advaita for something
else. There is a tendency among the uninformed to think that advaitins like Shankara, Madhusudana
Sarasvati, Maheshvara Tirtha, Sridhara Swami etc. wore differently coloured hats while commenting on
different portions of śruti / smṛti / itihāsa / purāṇa. Contrary to that we, even as Vishishtadvaitins, believe
that these advaitic authors were consistent and true to their hearts everywhere. Unlike the modern
‘Shankarites’ who conduct themselves variously to suit different purposes according to "antaḥ śāktaḥ
bahiḥ śaivaḥ loke vaiṣṇavaḥ", we believe that these early advaitAcArya-s fall under the "mahAtma"
category according to the following saying:

"manas anyat vacas anyat kāryam anyad durātmanām । manas ekaṃ vacas ekaṃ karmaṇyekaṃ
mahātmanām ॥",
even though they may not have been infallible with respect to the logical fallacies of advaita as
a darshana.

Anyhow, why not say instead that Madhusudana Sarasvati's Gudhartha Dipika commentary on the
Bhagavad Gita overrules what was stated in Advaita Siddhi? Unlike our adversaries, we need not resort
to such desperate arguments to establish our position. We can, and have, done justice to all available
evidence and reconciled them without ignoring anything that seems to run contrary to our position as
unimportant, as one will see in this article.

Vishnu as Saguna Brahman and Krama-mukti in Shankara’s Brahma Sutra

Bhashya: Part II – The jagad-vyApAra-adhikaraNa section
In this section of the Brahma Sutra Bhashya (BSB), Shankara raises the following question: “Do
those saguNopAsaka-s, who attain Ishvara-sAyujya through the knowledge of qualified Brahman
(saguNa vidyA) attain unlimited Lordship, or is their Lordship subject to certain limitations? This section
is for two main purposes:

1. To show why the pUrvapakSha (prima facie) view that the aishvarya (Lordship) is unlimited
must be rejected, based on Shruti, Smriti, etc.

2. To show why the Purvapakshin’s remark “limited aishvarya means return to saMsAra” must be
rejected.

In this section, one of the reasons given by Shankara for limited Lordship is that the shruti talks about
Lordship for saguNopAsaka-s only within the material realm.

Shankara then continues his argument as follows: Now, the Lordship of the Highest Lord is confined
not only to the material realm since He exists in an eternal form beyond it. We have evidence from both
Shruti and Smriti for this fact. And it cannot be stated that those who have no intent, by virtue of the
absence of any such vidhi (rule), to obtain the Lordship of the eternal abode. Hence, their Lordship is
limited to the material world while the Lordship of the Highest Lord extends beyond it.

In this context, it is important to analyze in detail Shankara’s commentaries not only to the related sUtra-
s, but also to the shruti and smR^iti texts given in support of this “eternal form of the Lord unconnected
with the effected universe” that Shankara refers to.

There are other arguments that Shankara gives for the limitedness of aishvarya for those who
attain sAyujya. These are: (a) The aishvarya of these devotees cannot extend to creation ofthe universe
etc. since it would lead to a position where there are multiple Ishvaras. (b) The scripture moreover
declares that only their enjoyment is equivalent to that of the Highest Lord. These are unrelated to our
present article and hence we shall not examine them.

Below are the sUtra-s that are of interest to the present topic, the Sanskrit text of Shankara’s
commentary with English translations given underneath.

Sutra Bhashya 4.4.19-20

vikārāvarti ca tathā hi sthitim āha | BBs_4,4.19 |

vikārāvartyapi ca nityamuktaṃ pārameśvaraṃ rūpaṃ na kevalaṃ vikāramātragocaraṃ

savitṛmaṇḍalādi adhiṣṭhānam /
tathā hi asya dvirūpāṃ sthitim āha āmnāyaḥ 'tāvānasya mahimā tato jyāyāṃśca puruṣaḥ /
pādo 'sya sarvā bhūtāni, tripādasyāmṛtaṃ divi' (chā. 3.12.6) iti evamādiḥ /
na ca tat nirvikāraṃ rūpam itara ālambanāḥ prāpnuvanti iti śakyaṃ vaktum atatkratutvāt teṣām /
ataḥ ca yathā eva dvirūpe parameśvare nirguṇaṃ rūpam anavāpya saguṇa eva avatiṣṭhanta evaṃ
saguṇaḥ api niravagraham aiśvaryam anavāpya sāvagraha eva avatiṣṭhanta iti draṣṭavyam // 19 //

Moreover, according to scripture, there is also an eternal form of the Highest Lord which does not abide
in effects; He is not only the ruling soul of the spheres of the sun and so on which lie within the sphere
of what is effected (in other words, he does not merely dwell as inner ruler of sun, etc, but also has an
abode and form beyond prakR^ti).

For the text declares His abiding in a twofold form, as follows: 'Such is the greatness of it; greater than
it is the Person. One foot of him are all beings; three feet of him is what is immortal in its own self-
effulgence' (Ch. Up. III, 12, 6). And it cannot be maintained that that form of Him which is beyond
modification, ie, beyond time (nirvikAra) is obtained by those who upAsaka-s intending to reach His
other forms (ie, the effects like sun, etc); for intent is not placed on the former.

Hence, just as he (the Saguna Upasaka) does not reach (directly) the attributeless (nirguNa) nature of
the double-natured Highest Lord, stopping at that form which is distinguished by qualities (saguNa),
even in obtaining the Saguna form of the Lord, the upAsaka stops at limited aishvarya (in the form of
rulership over certain spheres within the effected universe) and does not obtain the
unlimited aishvarya of Ishvara.

darśayataś caivaṃ pratyakṣānumāne | BBs_4,4.20 |

darśayataḥ ca vikāra āvartitvaṃ parasya jyotiṣaḥ śruti smṛtī /

'na tatra sūryo bhāti na candratārakaṃ nemā vidyuto bhānti kuto 'yamagniḥ' (kaṭha. 5.15, śvetā. 6.14,
muṇḍa. 2.2.10) iti /
'na tadbhāsayate sūryo na śaśāṅ ko na pāvakaḥ' (gī. 15.6) iti ca /
tat evaṃ vikāra āvartitvaṃ parasya jyotiṣaḥ prasiddham iti abhiprāyaḥ // 20 //

Scripture and Smriti both declare that the highest light does not abide within effected things, 'The sun
does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these lightnings, and much less this fire' (Mu. Up.
II, 2, 10). 'The sun does not illume it, nor the moon, nor fire' (Bha. Gîtâ XV, 6).--The Sûtra is meant to
show that the non-abiding of the highest light within effected things is a well-known circumstance.

Discussion

Here, Shankara’s statements look very indirect and can cause much confusion if the context is not
understood properly. We shall now address the key areas that need to be clarified:

Question: What does ‘obtaining a certain form of the Lord’ mean here?

Answer: The context is established by the bhAShya for the first sUtra in this adhikaraNa (section) i.e.,
BSB 4.4.17. Here, Shankara raises a question on the issue of saguNopAsaka-s attaining sAyujya with
the Highest Lord:

ye saguṇabrahma upāsanāt saha eva manasā īśvarasāyujyaṃ vrajanti kiṃ teṣāṃ niravagraham
aiśvaryaṃ bhavati āhosvit sāvagraham iti saṃśayaḥ

In the next Sutra (BSB, 4.4.18), Shankara talks about attaining Lordship over certain spheres as
“obtaining the Lord of the mind” etc. It is specifically to be understood that “obtaining the Lord of
the manas” here means “obtaining the rulership of manas, on account of obtaining sAyujya with the
Lord, who happens to be the ruler of the manas”:

ādhikāriko yaḥ savitṛmaṇḍalādiṣu viśeṣa āyataneṣu avasthitaḥ para īśvaraḥ tadāyatta eva iyaṃ
svārājyaprāptiḥ ucyate /
yatkāraṇam anantaram 'āpnoti manasaspatim' (tai. 1.6.2) ityāha /
yo hi sarvamanasāṃ patiḥ pūrvasiddha īśvaraḥ taṃ prāpnoti iti etat uktaṃ bhavati /
tat anusāreṇa eva ca anantaram 'vākpatiścakṣuṣpatiḥ śrotrapatirvijñānapatiśca bhavati' (tai. 1.6.2)
ityāha /
evam anyatra api yathāsaṃbhavaṃ nityasiddha īśvara āyattam eva itareṣām aiśvaryaṃ yojayitavyam
// 18 //

It is stated that the individual soul’s rulership is dependent on the Him, who is eternally perfect
(nityasiddha). And He, who officiates in certain special places within the material universe such as the
sphere of the sun (ādhikāriko yaḥ savitṛmaṇḍalādiṣu viśeṣa āyataneṣu avasthitaḥ) lets the individual
soul enjoy rulership of these spheres through sAyujya.
Question: Why does the Sutra all of a sudden seem to bring up the case of Ishvara’s existence
independent of creation?

Answer: The Sutra brings this up in order to prevent the pUrvapakSha position that the rulership of the
individual soul can be absolute, since He can, in the aforementioned manner (BSB, 4.4.18) enjoy the
rulership of every sphere in the material universe. The current Sutra sets aside this conclusion, saying
even if the rulership of every sphere within the material universe is admitted to the seeker of saguNa
brahman through sAyujya, the aishvarya is not unlimited. For, the Sutra says, the Highest Lord is not
only the ruler of the material universe, but is also the ruler of realms beyond (vikArAvartI). For this
purpose only, the Sutra brings up the case of the eternal abode and eternal form of the Lord
unconnected with creation (nityamuktaM parameshvaraM rUpam, nirvikAraM rUpam).

Question: Why does the Sutra say that the individual soul does not obtain the eternal form of the Lord?
Does that mean that saguNopAsaka-s do not reach an eternal realm and remain only within the material
universe, subject to rebirth? Moreover, the Sutra says that the saguNopAsaka-s are not intent on the
eternal form of the Lord, how is that possible, since saguNopAsaka-s, as per your theory, reach the
eternal Vaikuntha loka where the Lord exists with an eternal form?

Answer: An apparent contradiction indeed to our position, but arising out of lack of attention to the
context!! One must also read the sub-commentaries of Anandagiri (nyAyanirNaya TIkA) and Anubhuti
Svarupacharya (prakaTArtha vivaraNa) to dispel this apparent position contradictory to various shruti,
smR^iti, and purANa texts that talk about upAsaka-s being granted to reach the eternal realm
of vaikuNTha.

Take the context first. We already showed that “obtaining the Lord of such and such a form” refers to
obtaining and enjoying rulership over the sphere in which the stated form of the Lord is said to exist.
Hence, this portion of the commentary only means that the attainer of sAyujya-mukti does not attain
rulership over the eternal realm of the Lord, but only rulership over the material universe, thus limiting
his aishvarya.

Next, we need to look at what is meant by saying “these saguNopAsaka-s do not have their intention
set on the nirvikAra form of the Lord”. For this, Anandagiri’s Tika (nyAyanirNaya) and Anubhuti
Svarupacarya’s Prakatartha Vivarana say that due to the lack of a rule in the shruti for obtaining such
a Lordship, there is no intent on the part of the upAsaka-s:

niratiśayaiśvaryavadīśvaropāsakāstadātmatāṃ prāptāḥ sātiśayaiśvaryavanto bhavantītiyayuktaṃ

tadātmatvavirodhādityāśaṅkya brahmaikye’api saguṇaprāptānāṃ
nirguṇaprāptyabhāvavadetadyuktamiti vaktuṃ brahmaṇo dvairūpyamāha - vikārāvartīti (nyāyanirṇaya,
4.4.19)

[The following doubt is raised: “It is not befitting to say that those who attain sAyujya with a being that
is endowed with unlimited rulership attains limited rulership, because the two are of contradictory
nature.” The section is begun by Shankara showing the twofold form of Saguna Brahman
(vikAra and nirvikAra) to answer as follows: “Just as those who obtain saguNa brahman do not attain
the nirguNa state (immediately) even though Brahman is one, what we have stated makes is in fact
fitting very well.”]

astu brahmaṇo vikārāvartirūpaṃ tathāpi kiṃ syāt, tatrāha - naceti । vastutastathātve’api

yathopāsanameva tatprāptirupāsanaṃ ca vidhyadhīnaṃ niravagrahamahattvādidharmasya
copāstyagocaratvādanupāsitasyāprāptiriti phalitamāha - ataśceti । (nyāyanirṇaya, 4.4.19)

[“You say there is an eternal changeless form of (Saguna) Brahman. Be that as it may. So what?” - This
question is answered thus: “In reality, even though it is so (that the Saguna Brahman has an eternal
form), the general rule of ‘obtaining of exactly the same form (i.e., rulership) as per the nature
of upAsana’ is dependent on the specific rules in scripture. In the absence of a scriptural-based
specification of obtaining such forms as unlimited Lordship etc. through upAsana, there is no attainment
of what is not meditated upon.”]
nanūpāsyasya brahmaṇo niraṅkuśamaiśvaryamasti ; tatkimiti tadupāsanānna prāpyata ityāśaṅkya
vyabhicāramāha - vikārāvarti ceti । yadyadbrahmaṇo rūpaṃ tatsarvamupāsakena prāptavyamiti na
niyama ityarthaḥ ॥ (prakaṭārtha vivaraṇa, 4.4.19)

[By the section beginning with “and moreoer, there is an eternal form disconnected with the material
universe” etc., the following doubt is answered: “But the object of worship, (Saguna) Brahman, is
endowed with unlimited rulership. Why is that rulership not obtained by worshiping it (Brahman)?” The
meaning is, there is no rule to say that *every* form of (Saguna) Brahman is obtainable to the
worshiper.]

Question: How do you say that the Sutra Bhashya shows Ishvara’s existence beyond material creation?

Answer: To show the existence of this eternal form, Shankara gives the example of Gayatri-brahma-
vidya in the Chandogya Upanishad which declares that while only one quarter of the Highest
is saMsAra-maNDala, three quarters of it are immortal and in a realm beyond saMsAra-maNDala:

tāvānasya mahimā tato jyāyāṃśca puruṣaḥ

pādo 'sya sarvā bhūtāni, tripādasyāmṛtaṃ divi

[Such is the greatness of it; greater than it is the Person. One foot of him are all beings; three feet of
him is what is immortal and in its own self-effulgence (Chandogya Upanishad, 3.12.6).]

The commentary to the next Sutra gives two other examples:

na tatra sūryo bhāti na candratārakaṃ nemā vidyuto bhānti kuto 'yamagniḥ'

[The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and the stars, nor these lightnings, and much less this
fire' (Mundaka Upanishad, 2.2.10, occurs also in Katha Upanishad, 5.15 and Svetasvatara
Upanishad, 6.14).]

na tadbhāsayate sūryo na śaśāṅko na pāvakaḥ

[The sun does not illume it, nor the moon, nor fire (Bhagavad Gita, 15.6)]

Here, we should also cite Shankara’s Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya, where the Acharya says that *the
deity Vishnu* is the destination intended for those who are liberated, due to *no chance of
returning* for those who reach Him:

muktānāṃ paramā gatiḥ – muktānāṃ paramā prakṛṣṭā gatirgantavyā devatā

punarāvṛttyasaṃbhavāttadgatasyeti muktānāṃ paramāgatiḥ । ‘māmupetya tu kaunteya punarjanma na
vidyate’ iti bhagavadvacanam ।

For the Bhagavad Gita verse (8.16) cited by Shankara in the above commentary, one should refer to
Madhusudana’s commentary which we have explained under the next part in this article series to get a
clear picture.

Question: Well, what answer do you have to the objection that terms like “nirvikAra rUpa”, “vikArAvartI”
etc., refer to formless Nirguna Brahman (Chaitanyam) state and not some eternal form of Vishnu in an
eternal abode called Vaikuntha?

Answer: Again, our position fits the context whereas the position that you state does not. Here is the
reason:

The entire section talks about the niravagraha aishvarya which can belong to Saguna Brahman alone,
and hence the scriptural statements quoted (Chandogya Upanishad, Mundaka/Katha, Gita) etc. refer
to forms of Saguna Brahman only.

The existence of the two-fold saguNa/nirguNa brahman has already been discussed in great detail in
the kAryAdhikaraNa section itself, in 4.3.14. There is no need prove this again, especially with a Sutra
(4.4.20) dedicated to it establish it from shruti and smR^iti. Hence, what is covered in 4.4.20 must be a
new topic in the sUtra bhAShya, not something that was not introduced in the previous adhikaraNa-s.

Moreover, note the reason and the comparison Shankara gives with Saguna Upasakas not attaining
Nirguna Brahman (immediately). Shankara does not say “Behing Saguna Upasakas, they do not attain
Nirguna Brahman; Hence, the aishvaryam is limited.” The Acharya instead says “Just as they do not
reach Nirguna Brahman, being Saguna Upasakas, even in the obtaining of sAyujya with the Saguna
form, they are limited.”

The whole point behind bringing the eternal vikArAvartin form of the Highest Lord to attention at this
juncture is to show that the Highest Lord’s aishvarya is not limited to the effected universe. It would be
absurd to say “the rulership of the Lord extends to His Nirguna nature”, while from the point of the
attributeless state all duality is false and there is nothing to rule over.

Question: What about Anandagiri’s statement in the final Sutra (4.4.22) that the rulership of the saguNa
upAsaka is limited to one kalpa? Does it not harm your position by implying that your vaikuNTha which
the saguNa upAsaka reaches is within the satya loka only, and that this loka is subject to dissolution?

Answer: This is easy to address. Rulership lasting for one kalpa makes sense, since the rulership is
over certain spheres within the material universe. Hence, it is temporary. It may be that at the end of
this rulership, the upAsaka attains nirguNa mukti by the grace of the Ishvara. That does not mean that
the eternal world necessarily is destroyed from the point of view of the individual souls yet to be liberated
in the vyAvahArika realm.

Question: Okay. It is clear that Saguna Brahman does have an eternal form and an eternal abode that
is Sri Vaikuntha from a cursory glance (more pramANa-s to be provided later). If so, what is the nature
of the antaryAmin of all creatures from the vyAvahArika perspective? Is it Saguna or Nirguna Brahman,
and does it have a form or not?

Answer: There are some who mistake advaita in a manner that they think statements like “AhaM AtmA
guDAkesha” refer only to nirguNa tattva as the Self and not Saguna Brahman. This is an erroneous
understanding. As has been stated already, Nirguna Brahman under shuddhasattva upAdhi-s is
Saguna Brahman. Thus, in the vyAvahArika sath, it is Saguna Brahman that is the antaryAmin of all.
Shankara has also explicitly made clear in his bhAShyas that Saguna Brahman is the indweller of the
sun, etc besides having an eternal abode.
So, statements like “ahaM AtmA guDAkesha” mean, “the self of all entities is that Saguna Brahman
(krishNa) who is Nirguna Brahman under shuddhasattva upAdhi-s”. Hence, “vAsudevaH sarvam” for
instance means that a mahAtmA must recognize that all beings have that one Self, which is Nirguna
Brahman under sattva upAdhi-s and hence called “vAsudeva”.
This antaryAmin saguna Brahman is nArAyaNa according to both Shankara who says “nArayaNaH
paro ‘vyaktAt” and Madhusudhana who quotes “eko ha vai nArAyaNa AsIt, na brahmA, na ca
shankaraH” in his Advaita Siddhi. Prior to creation, nArAyaNa, the Saguna Brahman, is full of
auspicious attributes which make him Ishvara but does not have a specific form. However, He assumes
forms like Krishna, Rama, etc after creation which are shuddhasattva in nature, or gentle (saumya) and
this is different from the beings like Brahma, Rudra, etc whose nature is rAjasa/tAmasa. Of course, the
fact that nArAyaNa prior to sR^iShTi has no form does not negate the fact that – 1) He is Saguna
Brahman qualified by attributes, 2) He nonetheless does have an eternal form in Vaikuntha which is not
subject to creation and destruction, 3) He assumes numerous forms like Rama, Krishna, etc and
occupies various abodes within the Universe as well after creation.

Question: Thus far, what you have given as an argument for Shankara’s acceptance of “an eternal
abode beyond destruction belonging to Vishnu the Saguna Brahman” is weak. The inferences are a bit
indirect. It looks like there are some hidden assumptions as well. Should you not show direct
statements?

Answer: Very well. For this purpose, we now begin two new sections “Evidence from Gayatri-
brahmavidya in Chandogya Upanishad Bhashya”, and “Evidence in Shankara’s Bhagavad Gita
Bhashya” where we have shown direct statements by Shankara supporting the notion of an eternal
abode for Saguna Brahman Vishnu. In addition to that, we have dedicated the entire next part of this
series titled “Acceptance of Vaikuntha as an eternal loka by other Advaitins” showing a continuous
tradition of advaitic authors accepting the existence of an eternal loka for Vishnu.

Evidence from Gayatri-brahmavidya in Chandogya Upanishad Bhashya

The khANDa 12 and khANDa 13 of the third adhyAya of Chandogya Upanishad concerns itself with an
exposition of what is known as gAyatrI brahma vidyA. Let us examine Shankara’s commentary to the
following portion of the mantra:

atha yad ataḥ paro divo jyotir dīpyate viśvataḥpṛṣṭheṣu sarvataḥpṛṣṭheṣv anuttameṣūttameṣu
lokeṣu (ChUp, 3.13.7)

atha yadasau vidvānsvargaṃ lokaṃ vīrapuruṣasevanātpratipadyate /

yaccoktaṃ tripādasyāmṛtaṃ divīti tat… viśvataḥ pṛṣṭheṣvityetasya vyākhyāna sarvataḥ pṛṣṭheṣviti /
saṃsārāduparītyarthaḥ /
saṃsāra eva hi sarvaḥ /
asaṃsāriṇa ekatvānnirbhedatvācca /
anuttameṣu tatpuruṣasamāsāśaṅkānivṛttaya āhottameṣu lokeṣviti

Translation: Now, what is described as the “heavenly abode of Brahman” (mentioned in the
previous mantra as the result of the brahmavidyA) that is to be obtained by the knower (of brahman)
through upAsana on the vIrapuruSha-s (i.e., the dvArapAlaka-s of Brahman situated in the heart,
mentioned in the previous mantra) has also been described as “three quarters of it are imperishable,
established in its own self-effulgence” in the previous kANDa. That Brahman is now described as the
“jyotis” which shines above the universe, above everything, in the highest worlds, beyond which there
are no worlds.

Note several points here. First, Shankara clearly says that the brahmaprApti arising from the Gayatri-
Brahmavidya, a form of Saguna Vidya, is described as “a heavenly abode”. Is Shankara intending an
abode within the material universe, or an abode of an eternal nature beyond material existence? Surely
the latter, since by saying “yaccoktaṃ tripādasyāmṛtaṃ divīti tat“ Shankara brings up the immortality of
this “svargaloka” (hence not to be confused with the ordinary svarga-loka of Indra, etc.) by a connection
with the imperishable three-quarters that was just described in 3.12.6. Also, the three quarters do not
include even the satyaloka, since “vishvAnibhUtAni” in 3.12.6 which Shankara explains as
“tejobannAdIni sthAvarajaN^gamAdIni” (fire, food, air, etc. constituting plants, animals, etc.) has to
include Brahma, who has been declared by Shankara as a bhUta (being that comes into existence
during the course of creation) in innumerable places in the Bhagavad Gita Bhashya etc. Also,
“saMsArAdupari” also shows that these unmatched Highest loka-s are beyond saMsAra that includes
all material existence. Brahma’s saMsAritva has been declared by Shankara in many places, for
example in Sutra Bhashya, 1.3.30 and in 1.1.4.

We also have confirmation from Anandagiri who says in the Chandogya-Bhashya-Tika that it is saguNa-
brahman here who for the purpose of upAsana described as the resident of these transcendental loka-
s:
tasya upāsyatvārthaṃ saṃsārādupariṣṭādavasthānamuktaṃ । (Anandagiri in 3.13.7)

This is revealed more clearly by Madhusudana as “śrīvaikuṇṭhasthaṃ sarvayogidhyeyaṃ” in Gita 7.24-

25. We have discussed this in the next part of this article series.

Again, do we have statements from Shankara himself that the description in this passage is a
description of sopAdhika saguNa brahman and not of nirupAdhika state? Affirmative, since Shankara
has dealt with this passage again in the Brahma Sutra Bhashya, 1.1.24 where Gayatri-Brahmavidya is
discussed:

yaduktaṃ niṣpradeśasya brahmaṇaḥ pradeśaviśeṣakalpanā nopapadyata iti /

nāyaṃ doṣaḥ /
niṣpradeśasyāpi brahmaṇa upādhiviśeṣasaṃbandhātpradeśaviśeṣakalpanopapatteḥ /
tathāhi- ādityo, cakṣuṣi, hṛdaye, iti pradeśaviśeṣasaṃbandhāni brahmaṇa upāsanāni śrūyante /
etena 'viśvataḥpṛṣṭheṣu' ityādhārabahutvamupapāditam /
Translation: Against the further objection that the omnipresent Brahman cannot be viewed as bounded
by heaven we remark that the assignment, to Brahman, of a special locality is not contrary to reason
because it subserves the purpose of upAsana. Nor does it avail anything to say that it is impossible to
assign any place to Brahman because Brahman is out of connexion with all place. For it is possible to
make such an assumption, because Brahman is connected with certain limiting adjuncts. Accordingly
Scripture speaks of different kinds of devout meditation on Brahman as specially connected with certain
localities, such as the sun, the eye, the heart. For the same reason it is also possible to attribute to
Brahman a multiplicity of abodes, as is done in the clause (quoted above) 'higher than all.'

Note: by “limiting adjuncts” or “upAdhivisheShasaMbandhAt” we need to take it as “sattva upAdhi-s” in

the context of upAsana. While all beings are nirguna Brahman under rajo/tamo guNa upAdhi-s, Vishnu
alone is under shuddhasattvaupAdhi-s and hence he alone is worthy of upAsana as Saguna Brahman
for liberation. This has already been pointed out by Anandagiri in his TIka on to Shankara’s BSB, in
the kAryAdhikaraNa section, and identified as Vishnu by agnicit puruShottama mishra as well in his
commentary to the introductory (invocatory) verse of Sarvajnatman’s saMkShepa shArIraka.

To those who say that the vaikuNTha vAsin and vaikuNTha loka must be subject to pralaya in Advaita
Vedanta because of its association with a certain place, we have the same reply as Shankara. The
statements of Shankara in Mundakopanishad 3.2.6 to the effect that Brahman cannot be associated
with a specific place is in the context of sadyomukti/jIvanmukti that constitutes immediate realization of
Nirguna Brahman.

Anandagiri (in nyAyanirNaya) and Govindananda (in ratnaprabhA) confirm here that the Sutra talks
about a form of Saguna Brahman beyond the saMsAra maNDala. Hence, it is clear that this form exists
beyond Satya loka.

Shankara’s comment “pradeśaviśeṣasaṃbandhāni brahmaṇa upāsanāni śrūyante / etena

'viśvataḥpṛṣṭheṣu' ityādhārabahutvamupapāditam” and Anandagiri’s statement “tasya upāsyatvārthaṃ
saṃsārādupariṣṭādavasthānamuktaṃ ।”, where they have mentioned that Saguna Brahman assumes
a form in a transcendental abode that is beyond the saMsAramaNDala for the purpose
of upAsana/dhyAna by yogins/Saguna Bhaktas. This form of the saguNabrahman and His abode are
revealed to be that of Shri Vishnu and Shri Vaikuntha in the comment “śrīvaikuṇṭhasthaṃ
sarvayogidhyeyaṃ” etc. by Madhusudana Saraswati in Gudhartha Dipika while commenting on
Bhagavad Gita 7.24-25.

Evidence in Shankara’s Bhagavad Gita Bhashya

There are several places in the Bhagavad Gita Bhashya where Shankara introduces the notion of an
eternal abode for Saguna Brahman, Vishnu. We have already seen the case of Gita 15.6 being quoted
in BSB 4.4.20 as a pramANa for the eternal form of the Highest Lord. Further confirmation that this is
Vishnu’s paramaM padaM is obtained in the corresponding section of Shankara’s Bhagavad Gita
Bhashya:

tataḥ paścāt yat padaṃ vaiṣṇavaṃ tat parimārgitavyam, parimārgaṇam anveṣaṇaṃ jñātavyam ity
arthaḥ | yasmin pade gatāḥ praviṣṭā na nivartanti nāvartante bhūyaḥ punaḥ saṃsārāya | (BGBh, 15.4)

Translation: After that, the Supreme abode (followed by the state) associated with Vishnu must be
sought after and known. Those who go i.e., enter into that abode do not return again to the state of
material existence and rebirth.

tad eva padaṃ punar viśeṣyate -

na tad bhāsayate sūryo na śaśāṅko na pāvakaḥ |

yad gatvā na nivartante tad dhāma paramaṃ mama ||BhG_15.6||

tat dhāmeti vyavahitena dhāmnā saṃbadhyate | tad dhāma tejo-rūpaṃ padaṃ na bhāsayate sūrya
ādityaḥ sarvāvabhāsana-śaktimattve 'pi sati | tathā na śaśāṅkaś candraḥ, na pāvako nāgnir api | yad
dhāma vaiṣṇavaṃ padaṃ gatvā prāpya na nivartante, yac ca sūryādir na bhāsayate, tad dhāma padaṃ
paramaṃ viṣṇor mama padam ||BhGS_15.6||
Translation: That abode is once again described. Neither the sun that is capable of illuminating the
entire sky, nor the moon, nor fire illuminates that self-effulgent abode. Those who obtain that abode,
associated with Vishnu, enter into it and do not return. That abode, which even the sun etc. do not
illuminate, is my, Vishnu’s, highest abode.

Right after 15.6, Shankara raises the objection “But it is well-known that if one can go to a certain place,
returning is always possible. How do we say for sure that there is no return of those?” and answers it
in the next few verses by saying that these upAsakas attain nirguNa prApti at the end by giving the pot-
sky analogy of avaccheda-vAda pakSha as well as the water-reflection analogy of AbhAsa-vAda
pakSha. Note that there won’t be any such serious objection deserving a long explanation if “prApti”,
“gamana”, “pravesha” etc. (respectively, “attainment”, “reaching”, and “entering”) only meant nirguNa-
brahman realization. The idea is that they attain saguNa Ishvara, who is Vishnu and then attain His
highest state, ie, nirguNatattva.

Let us take a look at another instance in the Gita Bhashya:

tameva śaraṇaṃ gaccha sarvabhāvena bhārata ।

tatprasādātparāṃ śāntiṃ sthānaṃ prāpsyasi śāśvatam ।।18.62।।

tameva īśvaraṃ śaraṇam āśrayaṃ saṃsārārtiharaṇārthaṃ gaccha āśraya sarvabhāvena sarvātmanā

he bhārata। tataḥ tatprasādāt īśvarānugrahāt parāṃ prakṛṣṭāṃ śāntim uparatiṃ sthānaṃ ca mama
viṣṇoḥ paramaṃ padaṃ prāpsyasi śāśvataṃ nityam । ।।18.62।।

muktāstiṣṭhantyasminniti sthānam (ānandagiri)

Translation: Take refuge in Him the Lord alone with your whole being for getting rid of your mundane
sufferings O scion of the Bharata dynasty. Through His grace, i.e., through the Lord’s grace, you will
attain the supreme peace, i.e. highest tranquility, and the eternal Abode associated with Me i.e.,
Vishnu’s paramaM padam.

From the following closely-related purANika verse, it is evident that the Gita verse in question (18.62,
above) says that the mukta reaches the eternal Vaikuntha Loka. Note the second half of both the Gita
verse and the below:

ato hi vaiṣṇavā lokāḥ nityāste cetanātmakāḥ ।

matprasādātparāṃ śāntiṃ sthānaṃ prāpsyasi śāśvatam ॥

Translation: “Hence, these Vaishnava-worlds are eternal, and of the nature of the sentient. By my grace,
you will attain supreme peace and the eternal Abode.”

The above verse is quoted as pramANa for vaikuNTha and discussed by Madhusudana and Gauda
Brahmananda Saraswati in Advaitasiddhi and Laghucandrika respectively (dvitIya pariccheda, page
745 Anantakrishna Sastri’s edition). We shall discuss this portion of Advaitasiddhi/Laghucandrika in
further detail shortly.

Coming back, the two verses show that “viShNoH paramaM padam” in Shankara’s commentary means
not only the liberated state, but also the attainment of Vaikuntha-loka.

Note that if the term “sthAnam” itself meant only “quiescent state of Nirguna Brahman”, Shankara would
not have added a cakAra as in “parāṃ prakṛṣṭāṃ śāntim uparatiṃ sthānaṃ ca mama viṣṇoḥ paramaṃ
padaṃ”. The presence of cakAra shows the attainment of Saguna Brahman’s world only, where two
things are said to be attained: (a) The supreme peace due to permanent remedy from the disease of
mundane existence, and (b) the place of Vishnu, the Saguna Brahman beyond saMsAra.

Also note here that Anandagiri has explained “sthAnam” (Abode) as “the (place) where the liberated
ones reside”. The usage of plural “liberated ones” (muktAH) indicates an eternal realm where a plurality
liberated Jivas reside makes it inappropriate to associate “Vishnu’s highest padam” exclusively
with nirguNaprApti, a state where there is no plurality.
Another point is also noteworthy here. In places where an interpretation in the secondary sense as
“realization” i.e., “svarUpa-pratipatti” is warranted for the terms “prApti”, “gamana” etc., Shankara’s
explanation is seen to be explicit and markedly different:

'brahmavidāpnoti param'(tai. 2.1.1) ityādiṣu tu satyapi āpnoteḥ gatyarthatve varṇitena nyāyena

deśāntaraprāpti asaṃbhavāt svarūpapratipattiḥ eva iyam avidyā adhyāropita nāma rūpa pravilaya
apekṣayā abhidhīyate 'brahmaiva sanbrahmāpyeti' (bṛ. 4.4.7) ityādivat iti draṣṭavyam /

Nowhere in the Bhagavad Gita Bhashya where statements like “attainment of Vishnu’s paramaM
padam” (8.21, 15.6, 18.56, 18.62), “attaining Me” (8.16, 9.25) etc. are mentioned, Shankara takes this
route to say that the “attainment” is to be strictly taken in a secondary sense as “realization of the
Atman’s true nature” or as “brahmaiva lokam” etc. In fact, Shankara explains “gatvA” as “prApya” in one
place “prApya” as “gatvA” in another in the Gita Bhashya, instead of “AtmasvarUpaM pratipAdya” etc.

Also, recall Shankara’s explanation of “muktAnAM paramA gatiH” in the Vishnu Sahasranama
Bhashya, which we have explained above in this article.

[Note: For those who believe in modern translations, note that both Alladi Mahadeva Shastri as well as
Swami Gambhirananda, who are non-Vaishnava modern-day translators, have used the term “abode”
both in 15.6 and 18.62 in their respective translations of Shankara’s Bhagavad Gita Bhashya.]

Continued in Part 3 and Part 4 of this series.

Posted by Humble Bhagavata Bandhu at Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook

15 comments :
1.

AaryamaaOctober 30, 2018 at 11:35 PM

Speaking of Veerashaiva, it's been a long time since I took down one of his asinine write-ups
and exposed his utter stupidity so let us enjoy some "Veerashaiva Kapola Kalpitam".

A couple of years ago, Veerashaiva had attempted to "refute" -- I use the word loosely -- Shri
Puttur Swami's "Sankararum Vainavamum" - a book where Swami unequivocally establishes
that Shankara was a Vaishnava. A sample of his "refutation":

- Puttur Swami says that Shankara clearly declares in his VSB under the names "bhUta-krt,
bhUta-brt" that Vishnu assumes rajo-guna/creation in the *form* of Brahma (virincarUpEna)
and tamo-guna/destruction as the *antaryamin* of Rudra (rudrAtmana), while he himself,
established in Sattva, protects. The usage of "rUpena" and "Atmana" clearly indicate the two
are distinct and subservient to Vishnu.

- Veerashaiva argues, "But but but Shankara quoted "tasmAt chivaH paramakAraNam" under
the name "Rudra".

- Look how the fool misunderstands the nature of a refutation. If you are refuting something,
first you need to address the very sections quoted by your opponent and reinterpret it
according to your opinion. Then only should you give a supporting statement. Quoting
something that appears outwardly contradictory without explaining the section under debate
is not a "refutation" -- all it shows is that your position cannot resolve the difference.

This much is his "scholarship". The waste of space is wrong of course.

Cont'd...
Reply
2.

AaryamaaOctober 30, 2018 at 11:36 PM

Cont'd from above...

Firstly, under the "Shiva" nAma occurring in the series "sarvam sarva shivah sthAnuh",
Shankara quotes the Harivamsha where Shiva says names applicable to him are applicable
to Hari and vice-versa, and thus there is abheda. The advaitic implication is that Shiva is verily
Hari, the saguna Brahman under tAmasa-upAdhis, or one can say Hari is verily Shiva under
tAmasa-upAdhis, and so that level of Jiva (Shiva)= Saguna Brahman (Hari) is accepted,
allowing for Shankara to proclaim that there is abheda.

This interpretation is proven by two things. Firstly Shankara's usage of "rudrAtmana" which
indicated the difference between the two at the vyAvahArika. Then, the second proof is the
statement by Shankara following this - "shivAdi nAmAbhih harir eva stUyatE" - Thus, Hari
alone is eulogized by the names of Shiva.

Note that Shankara, nowhere says the reverse - "Shiva is eulogied by names of Hari". Despite
proclaiming abheda and vice-versa applicability of names, he only accept the praise as one
way - Hari alone is praised by names of Shiva. It cannot be said that this is because he is
commenting on VS and favouring Vishnu, because our senile opponent wants to believe he is
praising Shiva as well, and also because he had no qualms accepting that names denote both-
he could also have said praise goes to both but he desisted.
This is because praise only goes to Hari who is Saguna Brahman. The abheda is only because
Hari assumes the form of Shiva under tamas and not vice-versa -- so though both are identical
by nature, one is the higher form and another the lower -- hence the higher alone is praised
through both Hari and Shiva.

Note that this is vouched for by Sridhara who says for the Shiva stuti in the Bhagavatam -
"Siva parAkramaih harih stuvantah" - whereas he never says Shiva is praised in a Stuti meant
for Hari.

And there is another reason why Shankara says all this here. The name "Shiva" occurs two
times in the sahasranama. The other location is "kshemakrt-chivah". There, Shankara gives
the direct meaning for Vishnu - he who purifies. So, to avoid redundancy, he explains "shiva"
in "sarvam-sharvah-shivas-sthanur" as "He who is pure, devoid of trigunas (despite being the
self of all). As pramANa, he gives "sa brahma, sa sivah". Then he says all the stuff above
about abheda etc because Hari is shiva under tamoguna upAdhis, but Hari as Saguna
Brahman is pure, and because of the former, the names of Shiva apply to him.

It is purely to avoid redundancy that he gives two meanings. Note that under "kshemakrt
shivah", he makes it clear it is a direct name of Vishnu.

So much for that. Now, this explanation makes the quotation of "tasmAt shivaH
paramakAraNam" crystal clear - names of Shiva apply to Hari. El Finito.

No knowledge of even the simplest meanings of shAstra, vishishtadvaita or even advaita and
he tries to write "refutations"!

Cont'd...
Reply
3.
AaryamaaOctober 30, 2018 at 11:38 PM

Cont'd from above...

Now, in our next example, we see how Veerashaiva tries to explain away another one of Puttur
Swami's refutation regarding some bogus upanishads:

//In the Tamil booklet ‘Sankararum Vainavamum’, the Vishishtadvaitin author makes this
charge on page 10:(Translation):Appayya Dikshita and his associates concocted several
Upanishads that proclaim ‘Shaivadvaita’ and compiled a list of 108 ‘Upanishads’. The
Vaishnavaite elders say that the 'Sharabha, Bhasma Jabala, Rudraksha Jabala, etc. that
make a struggled case of Shiva as the Supreme Brahman and the Muktika that endorses
these as Upanishads are modern concoctions.' If these were Upanishads really, Haradatta,
Srikantha, Appayya Dikshita, etc. who authored several books to establish Shiva-supremacy
would have cited these. But they have not.' We hear these in the list of Upanishads only in the
post-Appayya Dikshita period.//

This much about Puttur Swami he writes. Now our Veerashaiva "advaitin" (loosely) says:

//To the above charge, the Advaitin's response is as follows:

Upanishad/s with a 'Jabala' suffix is found named in the Shiva Puranam that is admitted to be
of very ancient antiquity. The size of the Shivapuranam is of that of the Mahabharata.
Shankara has cited from this Purana in the Vishnu Sahasra Nama Bhashya to bring out the
Shiva-supremacy, as the Parama Kaaranam.//

So basically, all those bogus upanishad are authentic because Shankara cites the Shiva
Purana, which means he established Shiva paratva, which means every shloka in the Purana
is uninterpolated and pristine, and a shloka with a random name of "Jabala" is quite definitely
authentic, and signifies the spurious upanishads. Quite a hilarious attempt at a "refutation"!

He isn't done:

// Later, Sridhara Swamin in the Vishnu Purana commentary has cited two verses, for the
same purpose, from the Shiva Purana. Sri Raghavananda who lived during the same period,
13 - 14 CE, in Kerala, and wrote a commentary on the Srimad Bhagavatam has cited several
verses from the Shiva Purana in the Sarva Mata Sangraha, again, that bring out Shiva
Supremacy.
The 'Jabala' found in the following sample verses of the Shiva Purana is definitely not the
Jabala Upanishad cited several times by Shankara in the Prasthana traya Bhashya. That
Jabala is available fully and has no mention of Bhasma Dharana vidhi. //

So Sridhara also cited the Shiva Purana, to prove Shiva paratva while commenting on the
Vishnu Purana! One wonders why these advaitins were so hell bent on commenting on Vishn
Purana at all, if they only wanted to prove Shiva Paratva!! And of course, the Shiva Purana is
authentic and uninterpolated in it's entirety even if one shloka is quoted!!

Cont'd...
Reply
4.

AaryamaaOctober 30, 2018 at 11:41 PM

Cont'd from above...

//The Shiva Purana is also replete with Rudraksha Dharana vidhi, Mahatmya, etc.
https://www.sanskritworld.in/…/…/book/book_50dbeb7a95cd3.txt
जाबालकोक्तमंत्रेण भस्मना च त्रत्रपंड्रकम् ॥ १,१३.२१अन्यथा चेज्जले पात इतस्तन्नरकमृच्छत्रत ॥
१,१३.२१तत्रै तेबहवोलोकाबृहज्जाबालचोत्रितााः ॥ १,२४.४९त्रत्रपंड्रोि् धू लनंप्रोक्तजाबालैरािरे णच ॥
१,२४.९अत्रिररत्यात्रित्रभमंत्रैजाा बालोपत्रनषद्गते ाः ॥ १,२४.८
[ स होवाच सद्योजातात्रिपञ्चब्रह्ममन्त्ै ाः पररगृह्यात्रिररत्रत भस्मेत्यत्रभमन्त्र्यमानस्तोक ..in
Brihajjaabaalopanishat,which is a very lengthy Upanishat.
https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanis…/brihajjabala.html… and also in this collection
containing Brihajjabalopanishat: https://sa.wikisource.org/s/ktu]
कालात्रिरुद्रोपत्रनषत् too has this vidhi for bhasma with the mantras: पररगृह्यात्रिररत्रत भस्म वायररत्रत
भस्मजलत्रमत्रत भस्म स्थलत्रमत्रत भस्म व्योमे त्रत ..which is in the Atharvashiropanishat.]
श्वेतागस्त्यिधीचाद्यै रस्मात्रभश्च त्रिवात्रितै ाः ॥ ७.२,३३.४ [reference to Shvetashvataramuni?]//

Because the Shiva Purana talks about bhasma etc, these bogus upanishad are authentic!!
Then he tries to argue the Muktika is authentic:

//Muktikopanishat is cited in Jivanmukti viveka (JMV) by Swami Vidyaranya 13 - 14 CE:

https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanishhat/muktika.html…
These two mantras are cited in the JMV together, after citing from the Kathopanishad:
बहुिास्त्रकथाकन्थारोमन्थे न वृथैव त्रकम् ।अन्वे ष्टव्यं प्रयत्नेन मारुते ज्योत्रतरान्तरम् ॥ ६३॥अधीत्य चतरो
वेिान्सवािास्त्राण्यने किाः ।ब्रह्मतत्त्वं न जानात्रत िवी पाकरसं यथा ॥ ६५॥The following mantra is cited
elsewhere in the JMVवासनाहीनमप्ये तच्चक्षरािीन्द्रियं स्वताः ।प्रवता ते बत्रहाः स्वाऽथे वासनामात्रकारणम् ॥ २२॥
All these three are found in the Muktikopanishad.//

Note that Vidyaranya's work does not say these mantras did belong to the muktika. They could
be from another work which were later incorporated into the muktika.

In any case, let Vidyaranya be quoting from the Muktika (As I haven't read his mediocre works
anyway). Maybe Veerashaiva is not aware of this, but Vidyaranya/Sayana is equally
responsible for the fabrication of spurious works as Appayya Dikshita was. Works quoted by
Vidyaranya and Appayya are not accepted by any Vedantins purely because of this. It was
Vidyaranya who invented the concept of worshipping 5 devas and giving predominance to
Shiva and it was Appayya who brought Shaiva Siddhantha thought into Advaita. Puttur Swami
has himself written about Vidyaranya being an untrustworthy source.

In all probability, the Jivanmukti Viveka was the starting point for the composition of the
Muktika.

Cont'd...
Reply
5.

AaryamaaOctober 30, 2018 at 11:44 PM

Cont'd from above...

//The JMV cites several Upanishads that are part of the 108 such as the Amritabindu,
Amritanada, Aruni, Paramahamsopanishad, Yajnavalkyopanishad, Brahmopanishad, etc. and
the Naradaparivrajaka Upanishad which even has this specification for the pundra of
sannyasins:https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanis…/naradparivra.html… ऊर्ध्ापण्ड्रं
कटीचकस्य त्रत्रपण्ड्रं बहूिकस्य ऊर्ध्ापण्ड्रं त्रत्रपण्ड्रं हं सस्य भस्मोि् धू लनं परमहं सस्य तरीयातीतस्य
त्रतलकपण्ड्रमवधू तस्यन त्रकत्रञ्चत् |Thus we see that several centuries before the advent of Appayya
Dikshita, the Muktikopanishat and the Upanishads listed therein have existed. The charge that
these are concocted ones post-Appayya Dikshita is completely without any basis. Unable to
stomach the presence of Shiva-supremacy in innumerable Upanishads, the objection has
stemmed by trying to blame Appayya Dikshita. The Shivapurana of very ancient antiquity citing
the 'Jabala' Upanishad/s and Vidyaranya citing from the Muktika and several Upanishads
enumerated therein is a fact that cannot be denied.//

Of course, even Shri Desikan and other Acharyas refer to Dvayopanishad,

Sudarshanopanishad etc. It is accepted that there were other Upanishads which were lost.
The Amrta-Bindu I believe is accepted in it’s current condition by even Vishishtadvaitins. That
doesn’t mean that bhasma jabala etc which contradict the Veda and are not even mentioned
by anyone is authentic.

The "philosophy" in these bogus upanishads is also a load of rubbish that makes no sense.
That should be an indicator. I have previously pointed out mistakes in interpolated sections of
mahabharata (SS) and Padma Purana (Shiva Gita) myself. Easy to spot an inferior work.

As for Vidyaranya recommending bhasma-dhArana, it is well known he is a Shaiva and prone

to that. No surprises.

Again, Veerashaiva fails to understand the concept of a refutation. Rather than addressing
Puttur Swami's simple point, “Not even Veerashaivas like Haradutta and others QUOTE these
bogus upanishads", he simply goes off on a tangent and guesswork. Before providing so-
called supporting statements like “Shiva Purana says Jabala", first refute Puttur Swami's
statement directly – why no Shiva has quoted these upanishad? Show some quotations from
these bogus Upanishads. In contrast, Amrta-Bindu etc are quoted at least. Otherwise, the
point stands. And if you want to show the Shiva Purana as proof, show again whether any
vidvan has quoted those verses – otherwise it is nothing but one of many interpolations in a
Purana which has never enjoyed a commentary tradition for obvious reasons.

Cont'd...
Reply
Replies
1.

AaryamaaOctober 31, 2018 at 9:00 PM

ADDENDUM 2: Didn't address this properly:

//The JMV cites several Upanishads....the Naradaparivrajaka Upanishad which even has this
specification for the pundra of
sannyasins:https://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_upanis…/naradparivra.html… ऊर्ध्ापण्ड्रं
कटीचकस्य त्रत्रपण्ड्रं बहूिकस्य ऊर्ध्ापण्ड्रं त्रत्रपण्ड्रं हं सस्य भस्मोि् धू लनं परमहं सस्य तरीयातीतस्य
त्रतलकपण्ड्रमवधू तस्यन त्रकत्रञ्चत् |//

I thought those were Vidyaranya's words, rather, seems like the buffoon is quoting the current
version of the Upanishad.

His brain cannot grasp that even assuming Vidyaranya is a reliable authority (He is not), and
that he was quoting the names of extant upanishads in his time, the fact that those upanishads
have not been commented upon or their contents quoted implies that they have been
tampered with or lost.
As such, while a "Naradaparivrajaka Upanishad" may well have existed, but there is no proof
that it's contents were the same as that in the current day version of the Upanishad. It is similar
to the case of Mahopanishad, where apart from "eko ha vai narayana AsIt..", nothing else is
quoted and Shri Vedanta Desikan states that the Upanishad is lost. The current version of the
Mahopanishad is tampered and the contents bar that quoted mantra are inauthentic.

Besides that verse about urdhva and tripundra clearly seems like it was inspired by the
debates between Sri Vaishnavas and Appayya Dikshita. Some "upanishad"!

So whether is Amrta-Bindu, Bhasma Jabala, Narada Parivrajakopanishad etc, it is not enough

that it is mentioned by name. It's contents must be quoted by proper Vaidikas. If not, then at
least one must examine it's contents to see if they are in accordance with Vaidika principles.
If they fail that test, as they all do, then they are rejected as bogus.

Of course, coming from a blithering idiot who claims Vishnu Sahasranama refers to several
gods, this is to be expected. It is a sign of his desperation that he is trying to make a case of
authenticity for spurious Shaiva upanishads as genuine shastras support exactly zero percent
of his opinions. Next thing you know, he will be claiming Allah Upanishad is authentic as it
borrows from a few genuine mantras.
Reply
6.

AaryamaaOctober 30, 2018 at 11:47 PM

Cont'd from above...

Now, my final production of Veerashaiva's stupidity. Here ,he discusses the nAma “lohitAksha"
in the sahasranama:

//Who is ‘Lohitaksha’ in the VSN according to Shankara?//

Apparently, a text called “Vishnu” Sahasranama really talks about everyone and everything
other than Vishnu according to Veerashaiva. Maybe the title of the text should give a clue as
to who is LohitAksha?

//In the Vishnu Sahasra Nama occurs the n name, 59th, ‘Lohitaksha’ While commenting on
this name Shankara says ‘lohite akShiNI yasya iti lohitakShaH’ [He whose eyes are red is
LohitakShaH] and cites a mantra ‘स मा वृषभो लोत्रहताक्षाः ’. This is the famous mantra that is
chanted during the upasthaanam for the Madhyahnika. It is there in the Taittiriya Aranyaka
4.42.33 and is the famous Madhyanika Mantra :
य उिगात् महतोणा वात् त्रवभ्राजमान: सरररस्य मध्यात् स मा व्रषभो
लोत्रहताक्ष: सू यो त्रवपत्रश्चन् मनसा पनात ॥
Here लोत्रहताक्ष refers to sUrya.
Upon checking the Sayana bhashyam we understand that the devataa addressed in this
mantra is Surya. Sayana says ‘vipashcith’ is ‘sarvajna.’
Thus, according to Shankara, ‘LohitakSha’ is the Surya Devataa.//

So, the logic is this – Shankara cites a mantra, and since Sayana, a veda-bhashyakAra who
simply commented on superficial meanings of the samhitas without understanding the context,
and who came centuries after Shankara – that Sayana says it is Surya devata referred to by
the Mantra and so it is Surya who is praised in a text called “Vishnu” Sahasranama according
to Shankara!!
If you look close enough, you can see his dvesham filled brain literally exploding under
pressure!!

Laughable. According to Shankara, Vishnu is Saguna Brahman. Thus, names of other deva
apply to Vishnu only, as they are forms of Vishnu under different upAdhis. So, even if we take
Sayana as an authority (and we shouldn’t), a mantra dedicated to Surya praises only Vishnu
according to Advaita.

And on another note, Surya is a name of Vishnu. Sayana is neither an authority on Vedanta
or Shankara.

//This is just another instance, of many, where the VSN has names that do not denote the
deity Vishnu but some other devataa. Since all devata-s in the cosmos are really Brahman
alone, the names in the VSN are often seen to be not connected to the deity Vishnu. //

Yes, it really is “anya-devata sahasranama”!! In fact, it doesn’t talk about our poor bhagavAn
Vishnu at all!!

//For example, Soma (505) is commented, alternatively, by Shankara as referring to Umaa

pathi, Shiva. The name ‘Rudra’ (114) too is so. Hiranyagarbha is yet another.//

And under “dhananjaya", Shankara says it is Arjuna. So is Arjuna Saguna Brahman as well?

Under Soma and Dhananjaya, he says Vishnu is Shiva and Arjuna in the form of Vibhutis .
That’s all. The Rudra nAma refers to Vishnu only As does your everlasting “tasmAt shivah
paramakAranam" (ShivAdi nAmabhih harir Eva stUyate)

Cont'd...
Reply
Replies
1.

AaryamaaOctober 31, 2018 at 2:28 PM

ADDENDUM: "lohitAksha" nonsense can be dispelled quite easily by studying the mantra and
shankara bhashyas to finish off Veerashaiva’s stupid notions. Sayana’s translations are not
authority for either school.

First, let us look at a generic interpretation of the mantra. Sayana’s superficial interpretation
will suffice.

ya udagāt mahatorṇavāt vibhrājamāna: sarirasya madhyāt sa mā vruṣabho lohitākṣa: sūryo

vipaścin manasā punātu ॥

Generic Meaning according to Sayana: May my whole mind be sanctified by the Sun who
bestows all our needs, whose eyes are red, who is omniscient and who rises from amidst the
waters of the ocean illuminating all the quarters.

This mantra certainly makes a reference to “Surya”. Sayana is not wrong on that account per
se. However, that this does not refer to Surya Devata, but to the Supreme Brahman, the
Person dwelling within the Sun according to Shankara. This can be seen from his Chandogya
Upanishad Bhashyam where he writes for tasya yathA kapyAsam pundarIkam evam akshinI:
“His eyes are (red) like a monkey’s seat - lotus. His name is “Ut”. He has risen above all evils.”

Thus, Shankara identifies the Being in the sun, with golden hair and red eyes as Saguna
Brahman, on account of “ut”. As the red eyes are specified in both the Chandogya and the
Sandhya Mantra, it is clear that “Surya” here refers to the Saguna Brahman according to
Advaita.

Now, is this red-eyed being, the surya devata, who is being hailed as Saguna Ishvara? Is it
Rudra? Or is it Vishnu? We direct you to Shankara’s brahma-sUtra-bhAshyam, where he
provides a clarification under “antastaddharmopadeshAt” as to who this person is:

“For the qualities of the highest Lord (Saguna Ishvara) are indicated in the text as follows”.

And Shankara, goes on to say that the Highest Being assumes a form to be worshipped by
his devotees, by virtue of maya, provides a pramANa for this, as follows:

“Thus Smriti also says, 'That thou seest me, O Nârada, is the Mâyâ emitted by me; do not
then look on me as endowed with the qualities of all beings.”

This smriti is nothing but the Mahabharata, and this is spoken by Lord Narayana to Narada.
Here it is - http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12c039.htm

That Shankara quotes this as pramANa to identify the Being in the sun as Saguna Brahman,
should be enough to dispel any silly notion that he was talking about Surya Devata. It is Vishnu.

Since – 1) the Lord has red eyes in the sun according to Shankara, 2) and red eyes are
specified in the Sandhya mantra, 3) and Shankara, who identified the red eyed Lord as Vishnu
in his BSB, 4) also quotes the Sandhya mantra in Vishnu Sahasranama -- he clearly identified
this mantra as referring to Vishnu.

Not that Veerashaiva’s blabberings even required an explanation, considering it is impossible

to think of the Sahasranama as denoting any other deva (starts with "kim ekam daivatam
loke") but this should make it amply clear.

Also note, that mantra can be directly interpreted as Narayana. “udagAt mahatOarnava” can
mean “he rises above samsara”. “sarirasya madhyAt” means he is in the sun. “Surya” is a
name occurring in the sahasranama, and Shankara and Bhattar have both interpreted it
etymologically. Thus, it can even be taken directly as denoting the Lord.

That should suffice.

Saguna Brahman and Krama Mukti in Shankara's Advaita

Vedanta - Part 3
Acceptance of Vaikuntha as an eternal loka by
Advaitins other than Shankara

Click for previous parts: [Part 1] [Part 2]

Next part: [Part 4]

Sridhara (and Citsukha):

Both in the commentaries to Srimad Bhagavatam and Vishnu Purana, the advaitic commentator
Sridhara has supported the notion of Vaikuntha. It is to be noted that Sridhara says in the Vishnu Purana
commentary that he is closely following the explanations given by Citsukha (in a work that is not
available to us today):

śrīmaccitsukhayogimukhyāracita vyākhyāṃ nirīkṣya sphuṭaṃ

tanmārgeṇa subodhasaṃgrahavatīmātmaprakāśābhidām ।
śrīmadviṣṇupurāṇasāravivṛtiḥ karttā yatiḥ śrīdhara
svāmī sadgurupādapadmamadhūpaḥ sādhusvadhīśuddhaye ॥

(Introductory shloka)

Let us take a look at Sridhara’s commentary to Srimad Bhagavatam 2.5.39:

"brahmaloko vaikuṇṭhākhyaḥ sanātano nityaḥ na tu sṛjyaprapañcāntarvartī ityarthaḥ"

[“Brahmaloka” is the abode that is called “Vaikuntha”, which is always existing, and not inside the
created universe.]

This is such a clear statement that cannot be explained away by adversaries in any other manner. It is
well-known that Satya-loka and other lokas are created, as showin in Bhagavad Gita, 8.16-19. The
identification “vaikuNThAkhyaH” is significant as well since it specifies the name of this eternal abode.

Note that the advaitins always use “Akhya” – “vishNavAkhya”, “vaikunThAkhya”, “nArAyaNAkhya” to
denote both the highest being to be attained and the highest abode of attainment. The reason for
using “Akhya” is to show that these refer to Saguna Brahman and His abode which are the highest
object of attainment *with names* (and hence can be called – “Akhya”). This is as opposed to that
highest object of attainment without names – ie, the nirguNa tattva which is attributeless, nameless and
without a second.
There is no “kailAsAkhyA” or “rudrAkhyA” because this deity and its abode are not the highest in
the vyAvahArika sat.

Next, we look at the commentary to the following shloka-s in Vishnu Purana, where the origin of Ganga
and the residence of Dhruva etc. are mentioned as Vishnupada. In five verses, this Vishnupada is
eulogised as verily the Supreme Abode of Vishnu, even though it exists in the material universe:

nirdhūtadoṣapaṅkānāṃ yatīnāṃ saṃyatātmanām /

sthānaṃ tatparamaṃ vipra puṇyapāpaparikṣaye // ViP_2,8.99 //

apuṇyapuṇyoparame kṣīṇāśeṣāptihetavaḥ /
yatra gatvā na śocanti tadviṣṇoḥ paramaṃ padam // ViP_2,8.100 //

dharmadhruvādyāstiṣṭhanti yatra te lokasākṣiṇaḥ /

tatsārṣṭyotpanna[tatsāmyotpanna]yogardhistadviṣṇoḥ paramaṃpadam // ViP_2,8.101 //

yatrotametatprotaṃ ca yadbhūtaṃ sacarācaram /

bhavyaṃ ya viśvaṃ maitreya tadviṣṇoḥ paramaṃ padam // ViP_2,8.102 //

divīva cakṣurātataṃyogināṃ tanmayātmanām /

vivekajñānadṛṣṭaṃ ca tadviṣṇoḥ paramaṃ padam // ViP_2,8.103 //

Translation: This is that excellent place of Vishnu to which those repair in whom all sources of pain are
extinct, in consequence of the cessation of the consequences of good and bad deeds, and where they
never sorrow more. There abide Dharma, Dhruva, and other spectators of the world, radiant with the
superhuman faculties of Vishńu, acquired through religious meditation; and there are fastened and
inwoven to all that is, and all that shall ever be, animate or inanimate. The seat of Vishnu is
contemplated by the wisdom of the Yogis, identified with supreme light, as the radiant eye of heaven.

Sridhara’s Commentary:
taddhi vairājasya hṛdayanāḍīsthānam । atastadantaryāmiṇo viṣṇoḥ sthānam । ataḥ
kramamuktisthānamapi tat sākṣānmokṣasthānatvena varṇayati nirdhūtadoṣeti pañcabhiḥ ॥99॥

Translation: That (Vishnu’s post in the material universe, called viShNupada, located between
the saptaR^iShimaNDala and dhruva described in the previous shloka-s) is the vein of the heart of
the virAT-puruSha. Hence, it is the place of his inner controller Vishnu. For this reason, even though
this viShNupada is a location in the material universe associated with krama-mukti or liberation in
stages, *it is sung as sAkShAt-mokSha-sthAna i.e., the very abode of liberation* in the following
five shlokas.

tatsāmyāt tena viṣṇunā samānaiśvaryeṇa ॥101॥

Translation: (The muktas) owing to sAmya or nearness to Vishnu, (obtain) a Lordship equal to that of
Him.

divīva cakṣuriti… anena tadviṣṇoriti mantrārthaḥ sūcitaḥ ॥ 103॥

Translation: By this shloka, the mantra “tadviShNoH paramaM padam” occurring in the Rigveda, where
the same words “divIva cakShuH” are found, is explained.

The meaning of the first portion of the commentary is this: Even though the Vishnupada where the river
Ganga originates is in the material universe subject to mahA-pralaya, it is a place belonging to the realm
of Hiranyagarbha’s satya-loka where krama-mukti is attained by Yogins. Hence it is praised with
the bhAva of the very abode of final liberation associated with Vishnu.

Note that Sridhara distinguishes krama-mukti-sthAna Vishnupada, a location in the created universe,
with sAkShAt-mokSha-sthAna that is Vishnu’s Parmaam Padam. Note also that this Vishnupada is (a)
described by Sridhara as Viraj’s hR^idayanADIsthAna, the place where his antaryAmin Vishnu resides.
(b) described in the subsequent shloka-s as the place where the river Ganga originates from Vishnu’s
left toenail. This put to rest any doubt against associating “viShNoH paramaM padam” with the four-
armed deity. Further, as many have observed, the Rigvedic mantra explained in these verses occurs in
the context where Vishnu’s three strides during his trivikrama-avatAra is mentioned.

Even Sayana, while commenting on the Rig Veda, identifies this section with the popular Lord Vishnu
who took the trivikrama/vAmana avatAra-s to take three strides. Moreover, Sayana explains “paramaM
padam” as “svargasthAna” i.e., heavenly abode!

Note also Sridhara’s mention of samAnaishvarya with Vishnu for those who attain sAyujya.

Hence, this vishNupada is part of the stages that saguNopAsaka-s go through, while
attaining satyaloka. Hence the vaikuNTha proper that is beyond the material universe.
It cannot be argued that this “sAkShAt-mokSha-sthAna” is nirguNa mokSha since it is being compared
to vishNupada, a place of duality in the material universe. Neither can it be said that this vishNupada is
the actual shrI vaikuNTha as opposed to an intermediary abode of vishNu because if so, it negates the
fact that mukta-s reach satyaloka. Hence, this vishNupada is part of the stages
of karmamukti whereby mukta-s reach satya loka and then after pralaya, reach shrI vaikuNTha that is
beyond the material universe, the “sAkShAt-moksha-sthAna” (which has been compared
with vishNupada).

Sridhara’s introductory shloka showing he followed Citsukha also points to the strong possibility that a
preceptor as significant as Citsukha in the history of Advaita Vedanta has given a commentary in the
same manner.

Madhusudana (Gudhartha Dipika):

In the Gudhartha Dipika, Madhusudana has specified the Lord’s eternal form in Vaikuntha-loka that is
meditated upon by all Yogins was shown before Devaki and Vasudeva during His birth as Krishna:

“nanu janmakāle'pi sarvayogidhyeyaṃ śrīvaikuṇṭhasthamaiśvarameva rūpamāvirbhāvitavati...”

 (Gudhartha Dipika, 7.24)

In 8.15, Madhusudana says that those who obtain the Lord, reach Him and after enjoyment in His
Abode, reaches the attributeless state. The Acharya also states that this is kramamukti only:

...mahātmānaḥ rajastamomalarahitāntaḥkaraṇāḥ śuddhasattvāḥ samutpannasamyagdarśanā

mallokabhogānte paramāṃ sarvotkṛṣṭāṃ saṃsiddhiṃ muktiṃ gatāste । atra māṃ prāpya siddhiṃ gatā
iti vadatopāsakānāṃ kramamuktirdarśitā ।।8.15।।

Translation: “The great Atmas whose minds are devoid of the qualities of rajas and tamas and hence is
of the nature of Pure sattva, having samyagdarshana or clear vision arisen in their minds, after
enjoyment in My Abode, reach the Highest state of perfection called ‘mukti’”. (Thus says Bhagavan Sri
Krishna). Here, by saying “Having attained me, they go to to the highest state of
perfection”, kramamukti is shown for worshippers of Saguna Brahman.

(Gudhartha Dipika, 8.15)

“Having attained Me” – Here, “Me” signifies Krishna or Vishnu. “They go to the highest state of
perfection” – This refers to “paramaM padam”. Thus, “tad vishNoH paramaM padam” is explained as
“they attain the Saguna Brahman Vishnu and then the highest state of nirguNa mukti”. Remember that
“paramaM padaM” is explained by Shankara (Katha Upanishad Bhashya, 1.3.9) as “prakR^iShTam
padaM sthAnaM satattvamityetat”, which indicates both an abode as well as the state attained therein
due to the grace of Ishvara, Vishnu.

Note that Madhusudana does not use “malloka-kShaye” (i.e., “after the destruction of my abode”) to
indicate the end of Saguna Moksha. This indicates that Vaikuntha loka is indestructible even
in pralaya and only from the point of view of Nirguna Mukti its existence ceases along with all duality.

In the commentary to the next verse (8.16), it is stated that those who reach various abodes, include
the abode of the four-faced Brahma, have to be born again i.e., they have a finite lifetime and a finite
result which they enjoy and exhaust. After stating this, Madhusudana explains as follows:

kiṃ tadvadeva tvāṃ prāptānāmapi punarāvṛttirnetyāha -- māmīśvaramekamupetya tu। tuśabdo

lokāntaravailakṣaṇyadyotanārtho'vadhāraṇārtho vā। māmeva prāpya nirvṛtānāṃ he kaunteya mātṛto'pi
prasiddhamahānubhāva, punarjanma na vidyate ।

Translation: Arjuna asks: “Why is it not that similarly those who reach You also are born again?” For
which Krishna replies “On the other hand, those who reach Me alone the Lord (are not born again)”.
The usage of tu (“On the other hand”) is to show (dyotanArtha) the dissimilarity (vailakShaNya) of other
worlds (lokAntara) from Vishnu’s transcendental Abode and for emphasis (avadhAraNa).

(Gudhartha Dipika, 8.16)

This is self-explanatory. Next, Madhusudana explains that those who reach Hiranyagarbha’s loka with
Panchagni Vidya lacking samyagdarshana will certainly be returning, while those who reach the same
loka with as a fruit of krama-mukti and saguNavidyAupAsana will proceed to liberation.

Note that when Madhusudana says that Vishnu’s Abode is of a different nature than other abodes such
as Brahma etc. (lokAntaravailakShaNya), it is clear that it cannot be inside the material universe.

Madhusudana then introduces the purpose behind the succeeding verses that explain how the universe
is created and destroyed during Brahma’s lifetime. The purpose, says the Acharya, is to explain that
the reason behind why it was stated that all the worlds (other than Vishnu’s Abode) are subject to return.
That reason is kAlaparicchinnatva (limitedness in time):

brahmalokasahitāḥ sarve lokāḥ punarāvartinaḥ kasmātkālaparicchinnatvādityāha

(Gudhartha Dipika, 8.17)
The commentaries to 8.18 and 8.19 explain the process of the creation and dissolution of the worlds
and the timescales. These are self-explanatory.

Also to note, nowhere does Madhusudana say that Vishnu’s transcendental abode is also subject to
this kind of limitedness in time. If Madhusudana considered Vishnu’s Vaikuntha to be so, it would have
been necessary for him to clarify in this manner: “Even though Bhagavan Vishnu’s loka is also subject
to limitedness in time, those who attain it go to the Supreme State”, because it was stated that the
reason for the return of these other worlds is their time-limitedness.

After this, in 8.20, Madhusudana finally says that the reason behind Brahma’s creation and destruction
is because Brahma considers (abhimAnitva) himself (due to avidyA i.e., nescience) to be a created
Being, while the Supreme Lord, who is not subject to avidyA is not of that nature:

hiraṇyagarbhasya tu kāryasya bhūtābhimānitvāttadutpattivināśābhyāṃ yuktāvevotpattivināśau natu

tadanabhimānino'kāryasya parameśvarasyeti bhāvaḥ

(Gudhartha Dipika, 8.20)

Note that Madhusudana says that the Supreme Lord is akArya while Hiranyagarbha is kArya,
establishing that the Vishnu in Advaita is higher than Hiranyagarbha and his creation such as Rudra,
etc.

Even Dhanapati Suri, who in other places disagrees with the interpretations of Madhusudana, explains
“mAm upetya” (attaining Me) as “mAm Ishvaram upetya madbhAvaM sArUpyAdhikam ApAdya” thus
agreeing Saguna Mukti or Krama Mukti involves sArUpya, i.e., attaining a form similar to Vishnu’s.

Madhusudana and Gauda Brahmananda Saraswati (Advaita Siddhi/Laghucandrika):

Let us come to the case of Advaita Siddhi that some desperate Vishnu-haters quote to try and show
that Vishnu’s Vaikuntha is subject to destruction. First of all, Advaita Siddhi and Gudhartha Dipika are
the work of the same author, Madhusudana. Moreover, Advaita Siddhi has been quoted by
Madhusudana himself in Gudhartha Dipika: “advaita-siddhau siddhānta-bindau ca
vistaraḥ” (2.18), “vistaras tv advaita-siddhau draṣṭavyaḥ” (5.16), “...ity ādy advaita-siddhāv
anusandheyam” (5.16). Hence, it would be strange and confused to say that Madhusudana
contradicted himself in two different works, and also quoted one in the other.

Those who think in the above manner fail to see the middle-ground given to Vaikuntha in Advaita,
compared to the extremes of (i) the material universe, which is created at a certain time and destroyed
a finite amount of time later, and (ii) the nirguNa-state, which exists in always in the past, present, and
future from the pAramArthika viewpoint. There is a certain kind of eternality associated with Vaikuntha,
that it exists in the past, present, and future in the vyAvahArika viewpoint but is anitya since avidyA and
the vyAvahArika viewpoint themselves are not eternal. The context in Advaita Siddhi, which is a reply
to Dvaitins, is to show that nothing that has a form and is distinguished by qualities can possess the
absolute pAramArthika eternality.

Moreover, if we take a careful analysis of the passage quoted by our desperate adversary, it becomes
immediately clear that both Gauda Brahmananda (in Laghucandrika, sub-commentary of Advaita
Siddhi) and Madhusudana agree that Vaikuntha is eternal *in vyAvahArika viewpoint*.

Let us hence examine these passages carefully. Note that Madhusudana takes up the eternality of
Vaikuntha question in the context where the non-eternality of avidyA is discussed:

na ca avidyāyāmeva vyabhicāraḥ ; tasyā apyanityatvena vyabhicārāhāvāt । …. । etena

bhagavallokāderapi nityatvamapāstam । na ca

"ato hi vaiṣṇavā lokā nityāste cetanātmakāḥ ।

matprasādāt parāṃ śāntiṃ sthānaṃ prāpsyasi śāśvatam ॥"

ityādyāgamavirodhaḥ ; tasyāvāntarapralayasthatvaparatvāt ।
 (Advaita Siddhi, 2nd Pariccheda, p. 745 of
MM Anantakrishna Sastry’s edition)

Translation: There is no violation/contradiction (on the point of eternality) in the case of nescience
itself, since even nescience is admitted to be non-eternal… By this, even the Abodes of the Supreme
Lord are declared to be non-eternal. It does not contradict the Puranic verse quoted, since “eternality”
there means continued existence between two universal dissolutions, or continued existence during
intermediate dissolutions.

Note that the verse discussed by Madhusudana Saraswati has a parallel with Gita 18.62, as we have
explained above. This itself shows that the subject matter of Gita 18.62, which talks about liberation,
has to be the Vaikuntha abode.

Secondly, we believe that “avAntarapralayastha” has to be interpreted as “existence in between

two mahApralaya-s”, since it agrees with the Laghucandrika as we will shortly discuss. Even if
“avAntarapralayastha” is to be taken as “existence during intermediate pralaya” (in which the first three
worlds bhU, bhuvaH, suvaH are destroyed), it does no harm. For, the upAsaka-s who
reach satyaloka that is not destroyed in the intermediary dissolution attain Nirguna Brahma Siddhi
through Krama-mukti, and hence there is some sort of nityatva them.

Let us now examine the Laghucandrika portion explaining this part of Advaita Siddhi:

cetanātmakāḥ āvaraṇabāhulyaśūnyāḥ ।

Translation: (In the Puranic verse about eternal Vishnu worlds quoted by Madhusudana,) the
term “cetanAtmakAH” (literally, “of sentient nature”) means “not having a multitude of envelopes”
(AvaraNabAhulyashUnyAH).

Several smR^iti-s, itihAsa-s, and purANa-s say that the universe or brahmANDa that
includes satyaloka is enveloped by eight coverings, each several times as great in volume as the
previous one: the five elements (pa~ncamahAbhUta-s), ahaN^kAra, mahAn, and mUla-
prakR^iti. Anyone conversant with this can immediately cognise that from the above explanation, the
eternal Vishnu worlds in question exist outside the brahmANDa that includes the satyaloka of Brahma.

Next, Laghucandrika shows what sort of “eternality” these Vaikuntha-lokas possess:

tasya uktāgamasthanityādipadasya । avāntareti ।

"ātmā vā idameka evāgra āsīnnānyatkiñcanamiṣat",

"eko ha vai nārāyaṇa āsīt na brahmā neśāno nāpo nāgnīṣomau na ime dyāvāpṛthivī na nakṣatrāṇi na
sūryaḥ"

ityādiśrutibhiḥ pralaye sakalakāryasaṃskāropahitamāyāvaccinnacinmātrasattāmuktvā

"sa īkṣata lokānnu sṛjā iti sa imān lokānasṛjat । so'kāmayat"

ityādinā tasya dhyānāntasthasyetyādi puruṣāścaturdaśā jāyantetyādi pañcatanmātrāṇi

mahābhūtānītyādinā ca sarvalokaghaṭitaprapañcasṛṣṭeruktatvāt,

"yato vā imāni bhūtāni jāyante yatprayantabhisaṃviśanti suṣuptikāle sakale vilīne etasmādātmanaḥ

sarve vedāḥ sarve devāḥ sarvāṇi ca bhūtāni vyuccaranti"

ityādiśruteḥ bhūtatvāvaccedena brahmajanyatvanāśyatvakalpane lāghavāt abhautika vaikuṇṭhaloke

mānābhāvāt anāditvena śrutiyuktisiddhamāyādibhinnajaḍatvāvaccedena lāghavāt
brahmopādānakatvāt sopādānakamātrasyāvidyakatvenāvidyānāśyatvāt jaḍasāmānyasya
vināśitvamityuktavākyasthaṃ nityādipadamavāntarapralayasthaparamiti bhāvaḥ ।
Purport (for the last paragraph above): The cited shrutivAkya-s show that the limitation of (i.e., notion
of/characterisation as) “bhUta”, while associating naturally (lAghavAt) with the creation and destruction
of the universe from Brahman, cannot be considered to exist/associated with (mAnAbhAvAt) the
Vaikuntha worlds that are abhautika (not of the nature of bhUta-s). Hence, their eternality is declared.
But this is just like the eternality of avidyA, which shruti also declares in the statement
“gauranAdyantavatI” (quoted by Madhusudana in the immediately preceding lines). However, since
even these Vaikuntha worlds are also avidyAtmaka, they cease along with avidyA after Nirguna
Brahman realisation.

(Laghucandrika, from the same source as above)

It is amusing to see desperate ones mistranslating “abhautikavaikuNThaloke

mAnAbhAvAt” as “pramANAbhAvAt” i.e., there is no pramANa for abhautika vaikuNTha loka.

Note that if Madhusudana/Gauda Brahmananda meant that Vaikuntha is eternal only up to the point
of pralaya, Laghucandrika must have stated “Vaikuntha worlds are destroyed after Brahma’s kalpa” and
shown shruti/smR^iti passages to that effect.

To summarize, advaita posits the idea is that Shri Vaikuntha is beyond the material universe and is not
subject to pralaya. That way, it is eternal as compared to other things in the vyAvahArika. But since
even this Sri Vaikuntha is a product of mAyA from the view of the pAramArthika sat, it is anitya as
compared to pAramArthika sat. And this is what Madhusudhana was arguing with Dvaitins about – since
Dvaitins consider Shri Vaikuntha as absolute eternal reality, Madhusudhana was merely arguing that
any reference to its nityatva only pertain to its immunity to pralaya and that it is non-eternal *in
comparison with paramArthika sath* only.

Maheshvara Tirtha:

This Advaitin has written a commentary called “tattvadIpika” or “tIrtha” on Valmiki’s Ramayana

In this commentary, this Acharya too supports the existence of Vaikuntha as a mokShapurI, a place
where krama-mukti is attained. We have quoted these occurrences below, with our translations:

Bala Kanda, Sarga 1:

Verse:

gavāṃ koṭyayutaṃ datvā brahmalokaṃ prayāsyati ।

Translation: After bestowing hundreds of thousands of cows and immense wealth, (Rama) will return
to Brahmaloka

Commentary:

brahmaiva lokaḥ taṃ paramātmasvarūpaṃ saguṇasya brahmaṇo viṣṇoḥ svasya lokaṃ

vaikuṇṭhākhyaṃ ca (Bala Kanda, 1.92)

Translation: “Brahmaloka” here means the state of the Supreme Aatman, as in the Shruti “Brahman is
the world”. It also means, (Rama will depart to) the Abode known as “Vaikuntha” associated Himself
i.e., Vishnu, who is Saguna Brahman.

Nothing needs much explanation here. Saguna Brahman is identified as Lord Vishnu and is associated
with Sri Vaikuntha. The commentator is following Shankara’s observation that “paramaM padam” can
refer to both a sthAna and a tattva – hence, “brahmaiva lokaH” refers to the essential nirguNa state
of saguNa Ishvara (rAma) as well as the eternal abode of saguNa Ishvara which is called shrI
vaikuNTha. Saguna Brahman is identified as Lord Vishnu and is associated with Sri Vaikuntha. The
commentary also shows that the commentator subscribes to Advaita philosophy only.
Also notice the usage of “Akhya” with reference to saguNa tattva again. As explained
already, “Akhya” is used by advaitins only in context with Saguna Brahman’s names and abodes as it
is verily Nirguna Brahman under sattva upAdhi-s assuming names and forms for meditation.

In the next shloka, we show an esoteric meaning given by the commentator in addition to the literal one.
Note the mention of Vishnu’s transcendental Abode as “the unconquerable”, and that its existence is
supported by the shruti:

Ayodhya Kanda, Sarga 40 (Sumitra’s words to Lakshmana):

Shloka:

rāmaṃ daśarathaṃ viddhi māṃ viddhi janakātmajām ।

ayodhyāmaṭavīṃ vidhdi gaccha tāta yathāsukham ।।

Translation: (To Lakshmana she said) Regard Rama as Dasaratha, Sita as me and the forest as
Ayodhya. My child, go in peace.

Commentary:

yadvā rāmaṃ daśaḥ pakṣī ratho yasya taṃ daśarathaṃ viṣṇuṃ viddhi । "daśaḥ pakṣī vihaṅgamaḥ " iti
halāyudhaḥ । janakātmajāṃ māṃ lakṣmīṃ viddhi । aṭavīm ayodhyāṃ yoddhumaśakyām viṣṇupurīṃ
viddhi । "devānāṃ pūrayodhyā" iti śruteḥ ।

Translation: Additionally, know Rama to be Lord Vishnu whose vehicle (ratha) is dasha i.e., the bird
(Garuda). The Halayudha’s lexicon declares “dasha” to be synonymous with “bird”. Consider the
daughter of Janaka, i.e., Sita, to be “mA” which is another name of Lakshmi. Consider the forest to be
the unconquerable (ayodhyA) Abode of Vishnu. The shruti (Taittiriya Aranyaka) says “the
unconquerable city of the deities”.

In the next instance, we have a clear mention of Lord Rama giving liberation to Jatayu. The abode
attained by Jatayu is mentioned to be “the one bearing the name Vaikuntha”. Also to be noted is the
mention

Aranya Kanda, Sarga 68 (Jatayu Moksha):

Shloka:

yā gatiryajñaśīlānāmāhitāgneśca yā gatiḥ।।
aparāvartināṃ yā ca yā ca bhūmipradāyinām ।
mayā tvaṃ samanujñāto gaccha lokānanuttamān ।।
gṛdhrarāja mahāsattva saṃskṛtaśca mayā vraja ।

Translation: O mighty lord of the birds by my grace attain the state of those who perform sacrifices, who
kindle and maintain sacrificial fires, who beat no retreat and who offer land in charity. Purified by my
offering of fire, you may depart for the best of the worlds.

Commentary:

yā gatiriti ślokadvayamekaṃ vākyam । gatiḥ gamyata iti gatiḥ, loka ityarthaḥ । yajñaśīlādīnāṃ
lokamārgeṇa aparāvartināṃ punarāvṛttirahitānāṃ muktānāṃ lokān । pūjāyāṃ bahuvacanam
। lokaṃ vaikuṇṭhākhyaṃ vraja prāpnuhītyarthaḥ । "tiraścāṃ prāptaṃ dvijottama । tasmānmama
prasādena viṣṇulokamavāpsyasi ।।" iti। "sugrīvo hanumānṛkṣo gajo gṛdhro vaṇikpathaḥ ।" ityādau
muktamadhyaparigaṇanācca jaṭāyuṣo muktiprāptissiddhetyavagamyate iti। aparāvartināṃ saṅgrāme
iti śeṣaḥ। gamyata iti gatiḥ lokaḥ। yajñaśīlānāṃ lokān krameṇa prāpya madanujñātassan anuttamān
yebhyaḥ pare uttamā na santi tān lokān brahmalokān kramamuktidān gaccha । anena
saṅkalpamātrātkarmānadhikṛtatiraścassādhanahīnasyāpi tallokadānena bhagavānrāmaḥ
svasvarūpāṃśe māyayāvṛtajñāna iti pralapatāṃ mukhaṃ dhvastam, śokādi tu
naṭanamityuktamevāsakṛt। taduktaṃ- "saṃskāramakarottasya rāmo brahmavidhānataḥ। svapadaṃ ca
dadau tasmai sopi rāmaprasādataḥ।।
haressāmānyarūpeṇa prayayau paramaṃ padam ।।" iti jaṭāyuṣaṃ prakramya pādme। etena
tiraścāmapi snehādinā dehādi yuktamiti dhvanitam । sārūpyamuktilābhaścoktaḥ। mayā madrūpeṇa
sāmānyaharirūpeṇa।। (Aranya Kanda, 68.29-31.)

Here, the commentator says that Jatayu, traversing through the heavens occupied by those who have
accumulated merit through performing Yajnas, attained the worlds of the liberated, and says that they
do not return to mundane existence. The commentator then cites two verses from the Puranas to show
that Jatayu obtained liberation and not the lower svarga-s from which those who obtain them return:

"tiraścāṃ prāptaṃ dvijottama । tasmānmama prasādena viṣṇulokamavāpsyasi ।।"

[It (Vishnuloka) was obtained by animals (such as Jatayu etc.). Hence, by my grace, you will attain (that)
Vishnuloka.]

"sugrīvo hanumānṛkṣo gajo gṛdhro vaṇikpathaḥ ।"

[Sugriva, Hanuman, the bear (Jambavan), the elephant (Gajendra), the vulture (Jatayu), and the
merchant (were liberated).]

Then, the commentator says that these “Abodes” of Vishnu are places where kramamukti is granted
(kramamuktidAn) and that they exist above all loka-s and beyond them there are no other worlds
(anuttamān yebhyaḥ pare uttamā na santi tān lokān).

Note that this is an anuvAda or upabrahmaNa of the shruti passage in Gayatri-Brahmavidya that we
discussed above:

viśvataḥpṛṣṭheṣu sarvataḥpṛṣṭheṣv anuttameṣūttameṣu lokeṣu (ChUp, 3.13.7)

The commentator says then that this episode, by showing that Rama was able to grant liberation even
to animals by mere resolution (saN^kalpa) strikes at the face of those who claim that Rama was a mere
human being subject to avidyA. The expression of grief etc., is mere acting done for play.

The commentator next shows shloka-s from Padma Purana to prove that Jatayu
attained sArUpya (Vishnu’s form), thus explaining “mayA” (literally “by me”) in the current Ramayana
shloka as “madrUpeNa sAmAnyaharirUpeNa” (“with My, i.e., the form of Sri Hari, as it is conventionally
understood”) and then kramamukti in Vaikuntha:

"saṃskāramakarottasya rāmo brahmavidhānataḥ । svapadaṃ ca dadau tasmai sopi rāmaprasādataḥ ।।

haressāmānyarūpeṇa prayayau paramaṃ padam ।।"

[Rama performed the last rights for Jatayu and bestowed His own Abode upon him. And he (Jatayu)
obtaining by the grace of Sri Rama, with the form of Sri Hari as conventionally understood, attained the
Supreme Abode.]

Note the parallel with “tadviShNoH paramaM padam” in the bolded portion. Moreover, by
saying "vaikuNThAkhya loka" earlier, the Acharya proved that there was a loka involved. By
saying “haressAmAnyarupeNa prayayau” and "sArUpyamukti", it is clear that the mukta attains a form
of shuddhasattva similar to the Lord (thus showing Vishnu, the Ishvara has an eternal form) and
that "paramam padam” can also involve kramamukti.

Narayana Bhatta:

This Advaitic author, belonging to the Kerala country, lived about 500 years ago. He has
written nArAyaNeeyam, a summary of the Srimad Bhagavatam in 100 decads (dashaka-s) of verses.
The very first verse shows the author’s purpose is to explain weighty Vedantic ideas and the purport of
all shruti. There is a commentary available to this work by Desamangala, another Advaitin who
obviously lived a little later than Narayana Bhatta. Like early Advaitins, Narayana Bhatta advocates
Vishnu’s supremacy over Brahma, Siva, etc. and informs us that Shankara considered Vishnu alone as
Saguna Brahman (90th dashaka, 5th verse)

This work too supports the fact that Vishnu’s eternal form exists in Vaikuntha that is beyond the Samsara
Mandala. Let us take the following verses:

māyā yatra kadāpi no vikurute bhāte jagadbhyo bahiḥ

śokakrodhavimohasādhvasamukhā bhāvāstu dūraṃ gatāḥ ।
sāndrānandajharī ca yatra paramajyotiḥprakāśātmake
tatte dhāma vibhāvitaṃ vijayate vaikuṇṭharūpaṃ vibho ॥ 7.4 ॥

Translation: Oh Lord ! Vaikunhtaloka is the embodiment of that supreme light emanating from Thy divine
form and it outshines all other worlds. In it there is no Maya or illusion, no room for emotions like sorrow,
rage, ignorance or fear. Herein is only the continuous outpouring of complete happiness. Thou revealed
to Brahma, this supreme abode of Vaikuntha shining beyond all comparison.

In the commentary to the above shloka, Deshamangala shows the connection to the shruti verse “tatra
sUryo na bhAti…” etc. that shows neither the sun, nor the moon, nor fire illuminates Vishnu’s Vaikuntha
Abode, and that it is of the essence of Brahma-Jyotis that illuminates these mundane sources of light.
Note that Shankara has quoted such shruti verses in the jagad-vyApAra-adhikaraNa section as
a pramANa for the Supreme Lord’s form that does not abide in the created universe (vikArAvartirUpam):

paraṃjyotiḥprakāśātmake nātraādityacandrādijyotiṣāṃ prakāśaḥ, kintu teṣāmapi prakāṣakaṃ jyotiḥ

pramajyotiḥ, ādityādiprakāśakatvaṃ jyotirbrahma, tadevaprakāśo yatra sa paramajyotiḥprakāśaḥ,
tadātmake tādṛśasvarūpe ।

The next three verses show the liberated souls attaining sArUpya with Vishnu and Lakshmi being ever-
present with Vishnu in Vaikuntha:

yasminnāma caturbhujā harimaṇiśyāmāvadātatviṣo

nānābhūṣaṇaratnadīpitadiśo rājadvimānālayāḥ ।
bhaktiprāptatathāvidhonnatapadā dīvyanti divyā janā-
statte dhāma nirastasarvaśamalaṃ vaikuṇṭharūpaṃ jayet ॥ 7.5 ॥

Translation: Herein the divine souls who are four-armed and who shine with the radiance of blue
sapphire lit up by the precious gems in the ornaments that adorn them, live in shining aerial cars. Their
extreme devotion to Thee has earned them a place in this high abode. May this immaculate abode of
Thine outshine all else.

nānādivyavadhūjanairabhivṛtā vidyullatātulyayā
viśvonmādanahṛdyagātralatayā vidyotitāśāntarā ।
tvatpādāmbujasaurabhaikakutukāllakśmīḥ svayaṃ lakśyate
yasmin vismayanīyadivyavibhavā tatte padaṃ dehi me ॥7.6 ॥

Translation: In this divine abode Goddess Mahalakshmi, who illuminates the entire world with her
bewitching, dazzling form like a streak of lightning, is seen inhaling the aroma of Thy lotus feet
surrounded by her retinue of celestial maidens. Oh Lord ! Please bless me and grant me a place in this
wonderful abode of Thine.

tatraivaṃ pratidarśite nijapade ratnāsanādhyāsitaṃ

bhāsvatkoṭi lasatkirīṭa kaṭakādyākalpadīprākṛti ।
śrīvatsānkitamātta kaustubhamaṇicchāyāruṇaṃ kāraṇaṃ
viśveṣāṃ tava rūpamaikśata vidhistatte vibho bhātu me ॥ 7.7 ॥

Translation: Oh Lord ! Thy divine form in Vaikuntaloka revealed to Brahma (as a result of his prayers)
is the root cause of the universe. God Brahma had a supreme vision of Thee seated on the throne set
with precious jewels. Thy divine form adorned by the crown sparkling with the brilliance of a crore suns;
Thy bracelets and other ornaments, the Srivatsa mark and the red Kausthubha jewel were all revealed
to Brahma in their full splendour. May Thou grant me this very same supreme vision.
Hence, Vishnu’s eternal Vaikuntha loka is accepted in this work as well, with support from shruti.

Saguna Brahman and Krama Mukti in Shankara's Advaita

Vedanta - Part 4 (Addenda)
Previous parts: [Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3]

Addendum 1: vAsudeva/viShNu as paramArtha tattva

It has thus been established clearly in this four-part series thus far that Shankara’s
advaita vedAnta accepts none other than Lord Vishnu to be the saguNa brahman.

Frivolous objections against this, such as pointing out that “viShNu” is explained as “vyApanashIla” (all-
pervading) by Shankara to ‘establish’ that lakShmIpati is not meant, do not hold any water. Shankara’s
insistence on the samAkhya (appellation/proper noun) “vAsudeva” when he explains “viShNoH” as
“vyApanashIlasya… vAsudevAkhyasya” instantly sets aside such gibberish. No serious devotee of
Vishnu understands Him to be limited in space and time and “not vyApanashIla”.

Then comes the genius of a contention that none other than jnAnottama, the author of
the candrikA commentary on Sureshvara’s naiShkarmyasiddhi, is wrong in explaining “Vishnu” found
in the verse dedicating the work to His guru:

viṣṇoḥ padānugāṃ yāṃ nikhila bhava nudaṃ śaṅkaro'vāpa yogāt

sarvajñaṃ brahma saṃsthaṃ munigaṇaiḥ sahitaṃ samyag abhyarcya bhaktyā ।
vidyāṃ gaṅgām ivāhaṃ pravara guṇa nidheḥ prāpya vedānta dīptāṃ
kāruṇyāt tām avocaṃ jani mṛti nivaha dhvastaye duḥkhitebhyaḥ ॥

(Naishkarmyasiddhi, 4.76)

viṣṇorvyāpino jagatkāraṇasya padamadhiṣṭhānaṃ saccidānandaikarasamanugaccatīti viṣṇoḥ

padānugā vidyā । gaṅgāpi viṣṇoḥ puruṣottamasya caraṇamanusṛtya gaccatīti
"vāmapadāṅguṣṭhanakhasroto vinirgatām"-iti smaraṇāt ।

(Jnanottama’s Chandrika on the above verse)

It is no surprise, considering it is coming from a person who considers Narayana Bhatta and
Deshamangala to be petty peddlers and for whom even Panini is guilty of making errors. Coming back,
the above verse by Sureshvara is a beautiful word play comparing Ganga to Vedantic knowledge, and
is also a double entendre on the name 'Shankara', which stands for both the name of the Acharya as
well as Rudra who bears the Ganga as his crown. So is "padAnuga" too a word play dwelling on two
meanings - Ganga's abiding place (lotus feet of viShNu) as well as the supreme inherent nature
(adhiShThAnam) as nirguNa caitanya that the saguNa brahman (viShNu) abides in (by virtue of sattva
upAdhIs).

padam - refers to seat or basis (adhiSThAnam) of this saguNa brahman, whose only essence
(ekarasaM) is the reality-consciousness-bliss (sacchidananda) i.e., paramArtha sat/nirguNa tattva.

Hence, "padAnugA" refers to that brahma vidyA that "follows" (figuratively, as it were) the reality-
consciousness-bliss, the true nature of (viShNor vyApanashIlasya jagatkAraNasya) the saguNa-
brahman Lord Vishnu, who is the all-pervading creator of the universe. (nirguNa brahman cannot have
attributes such as sarvavyApakatva and jagatkAraNatva).

Jnanottama’s commentary continues further thus:

yāmevaṃvidhāṃ vidyāṃ gaṅgāṃ ca bhagavatpādācāryaḥ parameśvaraśca
yogasāmarthyādavāpa tamācāryaṃ sarvajñaṃ brahmasaṃsthaṃ munigaṇaiḥ sahitaṃ bhaktyā
samyagabhyarcya tasmātpravaraguṇanidher ācāryāt tāṃ vedāntadīptāṃ parameśvaraṃ
samabhyarcya tasmādbhagīratho vedāntadīptāṃ sitāsite "imaṃ me gaṅge" ityādi
vedāntapratipādyāṃ gaṅgāmiva sākalyena ahaṃ prāpya ārthibhyaḥ sakāraṇasaṃsāra nivṛttaye
avocam ityarthaḥ ।
(Jnanottama’s Candrika)

Here, a few things are to be noted:

1) By comparing Shiva and Adi Shankara and saying both are subordinate to
Vishnu, jnAnottama establishes that Shiva is only a realised guru according to advaita tradition. It is of
no use to say that a realised guru is equal to Brahman, because even according to advaita tradition,
these gurus - Shiva and Adi Shankara - are realised because they are saguNopAsaka-s and meditate
on Vishnu. Just because they understand the nirguNa tattva does not mean they become saguNa
brahman or that their bodies are worthy of meditation in the same manner as saguNa brahman.

2) Note that jnAnottama uses "bhagavadpAda" and "parameshvara" as comparable names of Adi
Shankara and Shiva. Here, "bhagavadpAda" denotes the jnAna (by the definition of “bhagavAn” in
Vishnu Purana) and viShNu-bhakti of Adi Shankara by which he became famously known. So, a
comparison only implies that the name "parameshvara" for Shiva also has the same meaning, ie, Shiva
is called "parameshvara" because he has the parama-aishvaryam of jnAna and viShNu-bhakti.
Therefore, this "Ishvaratvam" of Shiva is NOT saguNa-Ishvaratva of viShNu, but only in terms of jnAna.

Therefore, when Shankara uses the term "sarvaj~na Ishvara" in the kenopaniShad for Shiva, he implies
that Shiva is a realised guru due to his jnAna and not that he is saguNa Ishvara.

There is no conflict whatsoever with Shankara’s explanation in Katha Upanishad 1.3.9. And it is of no
avail to lament that this interpretation unnecessarily induces an intermediate state in KU 1.3.9, and that
this is damaging to our position since it would mean that the “Purusha” described in 1.3.11 is not Vishnu,
since:

1. There is no problem because this Highest State is described as that of i.e., associated
with/belonging to vAsudevAkhya viShNu, and NOT as “Higher than vAsudevAkhya viShNu” (which by
the way, was the interpretation resorted to only by Appayya Dikshita etc and even by this mistaken
interpretation, Appayya himself has accepted that “vAsudeva” refers to the Lord of Lakshmi only and
not a nirguNa tattva, as he was trying to prove something higher than that vAsudeva existed. Thus
modern day shaivAdvaitin-s are contradicting their paramaguru as well by claiming the opposite!).

2. Moreover, for the name “kathitaH” in Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya, Shankara asserts that
the shruti passage in contention “puruShAnna paraM ki~ncit kAShThA sA parA gatiH” (KU, 1.3.11) is
associated with Lord Vishnu only.

Even in Kathopanishad Bhashya for the verse in question (KU, 1.3.9), Shankara associates an abode
with Saguna Brahman Vishnu who has the name Vasudeva. In the commentary, Shankara explains
“padam” as “sthAnaM” i.e., place as well as “satattvamityetat”, i.e., the nature of the Highest self:

vāsudevākhyasya paramaṃ prakṛṣṭaṃ padaṃ sthānaṃ satattvamityetadyadasāvāpnoti vidvān

This again points to kramamukti in Advaita Vedanta, where the knower of (Saguna) Brahman
attains sthAnam, a realm beyond saMsAra, and reaches final liberation there, reaching the satattvam,
true nature, of the all-pervading Saguna Brahman Vishnu. If “padam” only meant a “state”, the usage
of “sthAnam” would be redundant.

In Shankara’s advaita, it is indeed saguNa brahman Lord Vishnu who is Ishvara and whose essential
nature as nirguNa brahman is rather unsullied by His association with shuddha-sattva upAdhis. On the
other hand, jIvas from Brhma, Rudra, Indra, upto grass, who though non-different from
that nirguNa brahman, are created beings conditioned by upAdhis of rajas and tamas and subject to
the effects of puNya and pApa.
This is the reason why we find statements such as “paraM brahma vAsudevAkhyam” (the Supreme
Brahman, called vAsudeva - BG, 10.8), “viShNorvAsudevAkhyasya paramaM padaM” (Katha Up. 1.3.9)
etc. in Shankara’s commentary. Again, what is meant here is that the Highest pure consciousness
devoid of all limiting adjuncts, can indeed be described as the Highest Lord who bears the
name viShNu, nArAyaNa etc., because the upAdhi-s that differentiate the former from the latter are of
the nature of pure sattva. Shankara/Anandagiri (in the kAryAdhikaraNa section of the Brahma Sutra
Bhashya) and other advaitic authors such as Agnicit Purushottama Misra (in the commentary to the first
verse of Sarvajnatman’s Samksepa Sariraka) have stuck to this position.

There is no need anymore for us to repeat this crystal-clear siddhAnta of Shankara in many different
ways.

Addendum 2: Purushottama in Bhagavad Gita Bhashya, the issue of loka-

prasiddhi
Using the same line of argument, we can settle yet another silly objection raised by small-minded
people: That the being described as “Purushottama” in Bhagavad Gita (15.18) is not any saguNa deity
Vishnu, but nirguNa brahman. The reason given by them is that the verse in question describes this
Purushottama as Higher than ‘kShara’ and ‘akShara’, and that Shankara says the verse describes
Parabrahman as nirupAdhika. The following is conveniently ignored, without any explanation:

The fact that Shankara mentions that this name Purushottama of the Highest Being is popular among
His devotees and poets. Madhusudana as well refers to the verse “hariryathaikaH puruShottamaH
smR^itaH” of kAlidAsa describing Lakshmipati Vishnu in Raghuvamsa.

Even a novice in these matters will find it absurd to assert that poets sang about nirguNa brahman with
names like “puruShottama” and that these names are reverentially used by a brand of nirguNa-
upAsakas described as “bhakta-janAH” who have nothing to do with the worship of Lakshmipati Vishnu!

How are we to explain this apparent anomaly? We need to resort to the logic used in Addendum 1
again: That these vyutpatti-s, describing the nirupAdhika nature of paramArtha-tattva, are befitting to
the name “Purushottama” of Lord Vishnu the Lakshmipati, since His essential nature is unsullied owing
to the purity of the associated upAdhi-s. Only in this manner, the whole portion of the commentary to
BG 15.18 can be satisfactorily explained.

Addendum 3: On the issue of samAkhya and lakShmIpatitva of viShNu in

Shankara’s works
We have also repeatedly pointed out the following fact: While words like “vAsudevAkhya”,
“viShNvAkhya”, “nArAyaNAkhya” etc. are used by Shankara to describe the Brahman of the
Upanishads, the names popularly associated with anya-devatas are never used.

It is amusing to see those full of avarice, in response to the above insurmountable challenge of
ours, going to great lengths to show how Shankara uses such terms as “shiva” (an adjective, which
means ‘pure/auspicious’) to describe the Upanishadic brahman, while our original challenge was to
show, if there exist, references to “shivAkhya”, “rudrAkhya”, “maheshvarAkhya” etc in Shankara’s
works. Acting as if there is no difference between qualifying something as “shiva” and “shivAkhyaH” will
be of any avail in front of a knowledgeable unbiased audience. The former warrants an etymological
(yaugika) interpretation as “auspicious”, while the latter warrants the interpretation “that which bears the
name shiva” which would have been a clear reference to the trident-bearing consort of pArvatI as the
Highest.

Such persons who are incapable of seeing these intricacies or deliberately play-act in a manner to divert
their audience’s attention from these finer points do not deserve to be called an ‘opponent in debate’!

Equally deserving of ridicule is the statement that Shankara does not intend Lakshmipati since he does
not refer to lakShmIpatitva while explaining the name ‘viShNu’ in Vishnu-Sahasranama Bhashya.
There are a number of references in the Sahasranama Bhashya itself to show that the being held by
Shankara to be ‘Vishnu’ is none but the consort of Lakshmi:
“maheśvāso mahībhartā śrīnivāsaḥ” - yasya vakṣasyanapāyinī śrīrvasati saḥ śrīnivāsaḥ

 He is Srinivasa, in whose chest Sri i.e., Lakshmi, who never separates from Him, resides.

“śrīvatsavakṣā śrīvāsaḥ” - śrīvatsasaṃj'jaṃ cihnamasya vakṣasi sthitamiti śrīvatsavakṣāḥ ।

asya vakṣasi śrīranapāyinī vasatīti ṣrīvāsaḥ

 He is Srivatsavaksha, in whose chest the mark called ‘Srivatsa’ is located. He is Srivasa, since
in that mark Sri (Lakshmi), who never separates from Him, resides.

“nārasiṃhavapuḥ śrīmān” - yasya vakṣasi nityaṃ vasati śrīḥ saḥ ṣrīmān

 He is Sriman, in whose chest Sri (Lakshmi) always resides.

“sarvalakṣaṇalakṣaṇyo lakṣmīvān” - lakṣmīrasya vakṣasi nityaṃ vasatīti lakṣmīvān

 He is Lakshmivan, in whose chest Lakshmi always resides.

“mādhavaḥ” - māyāḥ ṣriyāḥ dhavaḥ patiḥ mādhavaḥ ; madhuvidyāvabodhyatvādvā ।

 He is Madhava, who is the husband of mA the Goddess Shri, and also because He is to be
known through the Madhu Vidya of the Upanishads.

It is foolish to expect Shankara to specify lakShmIpatitva and other form-related characteristics of the
Highest Lord while explaining every name. According to the bhAShya, each name signifies only certain
characteristics, though they all belong to the One Being called Lord Vishnu who possesses innumerable
characteristics. Hence, only those qualities that are considered to be based upon
the vyutpatti (etymology/inner meaning) of the name viShNu are explained
under viShNu, while lakShmIpatitva and other characteristics related to rUpa are described elsewhere
wherever it is warranted.

Also, take a look at Shankara’s explanation for “mAdhavaH”. He says that the being who is the Husband
of shrI/mA/lakShmI is the Being who is to be known through the Upanishadic madhuvidyA. What more
is needed for a neutral reader to be convinced that the Upanishadic Saguna Brahman is none but
Lakshmipati for Shankara?

It would be a fruitless and endless effort to keep shooting down red herrings thrown at us by those who
can be best described as bhagavattattvAsahiShNavaH - those who do not tolerate the Truth about
Bhagavan Sriman Narayana.