WHO IS ‘BHINNA DEVATĀ’ IN SHANKARA’S BHĀṢYA?

Who is ‘bhinna-devatā’ in Shankara’s bhāṣya?

In the Bhagavadgītā 4.12 commentary Shankara says:

यदि तव ईश्वरस्य रागादिदोषाभावात् सर्वप्राणिषु अनुजिघृक्षायां तुल्यायां सर्वफलप्रदानसमर्थे च त्वयि सति ‘वासुदेवः सर्वम्’ इति ज्ञानेनैव मुमुक्षवः सन्तः कस्मात् त्वामेव सर्वे न प्रतिपद्यन्ते इति ? शृणु तत्र कारणम् —

काङ्क्षन्तः कर्मणां सिद्धिं यजन्त इह देवताः ।
क्षिप्रं हि मानुषे लोके सिद्धिर्भवति कर्मजा ॥ १२ ॥

 

काङ्क्षन्तः अभीप्सन्तः कर्मणां सिद्धिं फलनिष्पत्तिं प्रार्थयन्तः यजन्ते इह अस्मिन् लोके देवताः इन्द्राग्न्याद्याः ; ‘अथ योऽन्यां देवतामुपास्ते अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुरेवं स देवानाम्’ (बृ. उ. १ । ४ । १०) इति श्रुतेः । तेषां हि भिन्नदेवतायाजिनां फलाकाङ्क्षिणां क्षिप्रं शीघ्रं हि यस्मात् मानुषे लोके, मनुष्यलोके हि शास्त्राधिकारः । ‘क्षिप्रं हि मानुषे लोके’ इति विशेषणात् अन्येष्वपि कर्मफलसिद्धिं दर्शयति भगवान् । मानुषे लोके वर्णाश्रमादिकर्माणि इति विशेषः, तेषां च वर्णाश्रमाद्यधिकारिकर्मणां फलसिद्धिः क्षिप्रं भवति । कर्मजा कर्मणो जाता ॥ १२ ॥

4.12 Kānkṣantah, longing for, praying for; siddhim, fruition, fructification of the results; karmanām, of actions; yajante, they worship; iha, here, in this world; devatah, the gods, Indra, Fire and others- which accords with the Upanisadic text, ‘While he who worships another god thinking, “He is one, and I am another,” does not know. He is like an animal to the gods’ (Br. 1.4.10). [This text points out that the reason for adoring other deities is the ignorance of the Self, which gives rise to the ideas of difference between the worshipped and the worshipper.]

Why do people not seek to identify with Brahman by aiming at Brahman-knowledge in the form of ‘everything is Vāsudeva alone? The reply the Lord gives is: owing to ingnorance of the Self, people seek ephemeral fruits and their accomplishment by propitiating gods that are different from oneself. Shankara cites the famous, oft-cited, Bṛhadāraṇyaka passage: he who worships a god that is different from himself with the idea ‘He is one and I am another’, is ignorant (of the real nature of oneself.)  The term ‘bhinna-devatā’ Shankara uses is interesting. In order to ascertain what is meant by the term devatā, Shankara contrasts it by citing the Br.passage which contains the word ‘anya-devatā’. So, that deity which an ignorant one seeks to propitiate is anātmā, not-self. Thus, the true ‘devatā’ is oneself. Shankara has brought out the essence of this very Br.Up. passage in a crisp manner in yet another instance: the commentary to the Kenopaniṣat 1.5:

तथा कर्मिणोऽमुं यजामुं यजेत्यन्या एव देवता उपासते ।    Just as those given to action, upon the injunction ‘propitiate him, propitiate him’, worship ‘anya devatā’ alone. In the Kenopanishat the context is: The Upanishad wants the aspirant to know, realize, that alone to be Brahman which is not any entity that is other than the very self of the aspirant. It explicitly says: not that which is worshiped/meditated upon as ‘this.’  Shankara cites the case of worshiping/meditating upon Viṣṇu, Iśvara, Indra, etc. where the upāsya-upāsaka bheda is inevitable. So, this, in Shankara’s view, a case of the Bṛ.up. passage cited above: whoever worships another deity, that is, someone who is other than oneself, with the ignorant idea: he is one and I am another’ does not know the Truth. Thus, according to Shankara, the ‘bhinna-devatā’ of the BGB 4.12 is a deity that is different from oneself, Brahman. The Upanishad itself articulates that difference and impḷicitly rules out the idea: ‘the anya-devatā is some deity other than Viṣṇu who has a specific form/abode, etc.’

Shankara cites this Br.Up.1.4.10 passage in that very section along with several other passages that bring out the Atman-Brahman identity:

किन्तु नैव अब्रह्म अविद्यकर्ता चेतनो भ्रान्तोऽन्य इष्यते — ‘नान्योऽतोऽस्ति विज्ञाता’ (बृ. उ. ३ । ७ । २३) ‘नान्यदतोऽस्ति विज्ञातृ’ (बृ. उ. ३ । ८ । ११) ‘तत्त्वमसि’ (छा. उ. ६ । ८ । ७) ‘आत्मानमेवावेत् अहं ब्रह्मास्मि’ (बृ. उ. १ । ४ । १०) ‘अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति, न स वेद’ (बृ. उ. १ । ४ । १०) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः ; स्मृतिभ्यश्च — ‘समं सर्वेषु भूतेषु’ (भ. गी. १३ । २७) ‘अहमात्मा गुडाकेश’ (भ. गी. १० । २०) ‘शुनि चैव श्वपाके च’ (भ. गी. ५ । १८) ; ‘यस्तु सर्वाणि भूतानि’ (ई. उ. ६) ‘यस्मिन्सर्वाणि भूतानि’ (ई. उ. ७) इति च मन्त्रवर्णात् ।

This passage occurs in the Bṛ.Up.1.4.10 where the mahāvākya ‘aham brahma asmi’ is taught. And in order to emphatically say that it is identity that is the purport of the Upaniṣad, the very Veda demonstrates that ‘he who worships ‘another deity’ with the idea ‘he is one and I am another’, does not know. So, the Upanishad itself rules out the possibility of the ‘devatāntara’ is not any or all deities other than the formed/named Viṣṇu. On the contrary, all devatā-s, including the deity Viṣṇu, is devatāntara according to the Br. Upaniṣad, the Kena, and the Bhāṣya. An interesting comparison of two Bhāṣya passages:

BGB 9.25: येऽपि अन्यदेवताभक्तिमत्त्वेन अविधिपूर्वकं यजन्ते, तेषामपि यागफलं अवश्यंभावि । कथम् ? —

यान्ति देवव्रता देवान्पितॄन्यान्ति पितृव्रताः ।
भूतानि यान्ति भूतेज्या यान्ति मद्याजिनोऽपि माम् ॥ २५ ॥

यान्ति गच्छन्ति देवव्रताः देवेषु व्रतं नियमो भक्तिश्च येषां ते देवव्रताः देवान् यान्ति । पितॄन् अग्निष्वात्तादीन् यान्ति पितृव्रताः श्राद्धादिक्रियापराः पितृभक्ताः । भूतानि विनायकमातृगणचतुर्भगिन्यादीनि यान्ति भूतेज्याः भूतानां पूजकाः । यान्ति मद्याजिनः मद्यजनशीलाः वैष्णवाः मामेव यान्ति । समाने अपि आयासे मामेव न भजन्ते अज्ञानात् , तेन ते अल्पफलभाजः भवन्ति इत्यर्थः ॥ २५ ॥

Here Shankara says: even those who are devoted to ‘anya devatā-s’ are actually worshiping Brahman alone, but without knowing the truth. And goes on to say: those devoted to deva-s attain to deva-s.  Those devoted to pitṛ-s attain to them, etc. …..Those who propitiate Me, the vaiṣṇava-s attain to Me.

Now in the Kenopanishat 1.5 bhashyam we have the elucidation of the ‘those devoted to deva-s attain to deva-s.’ statement above. In the passage below, Shankara says:

Kenopanishat1.5: कथं न्वात्मा ब्रह्म । आत्मा हि नामाधिकृतः कर्मण्युपासने च संसारी कर्मोपासनं वा साधनमनुष्ठाय ब्रह्मादिदेवान्स्वर्गं वा प्राप्तुमिच्छति । तत्तस्मादन्य उपास्यो विष्णुरीश्वर इन्द्रः प्राणो वा ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति, न त्वात्मा ; लोकप्रत्ययविरोधात् । यथान्ये तार्किका ईश्वरादन्य आत्मेत्याचक्षते, तथा कर्मिणोऽमुं यजामुं यजेत्यन्या एव देवता उपासते । तस्माद्युक्तं यद्विदितमुपास्यं तद्ब्रह्म भवेत् , ततोऽन्य उपासक इति ।

Shankara raises an objection: How can Atman be Brahman? Atman is the one who is qualified to perform action or engage in upsana, a samsārin, intends to employ the means and attain the ‘deva-s’ such as Brahmā or reach svarga. Hence, the upāsya that are Viṣṇu, Iśvara, Indra, or Prāṇa, who are all ‘anya’, different from the Atma (jīva), could be Brahman. These deities cannot be Atman, as none can admit the identity of Atman-Brahman since the difference between the upāsya and the upāsaka is so patent. Also others that are tārkika-s hold the Atma to be different from Ishwara, and the karmin-s too replicate this as they honor the injunctions: propitiate this or another deity by action/yañna. Hence the upāsya is Brahman and the upāsaka is Atma.

Shankara sees this mantra 1.5 of the Kena as the reply this objection: Know / realize that alone to be Brahman that is not something that is meditated upon as ‘another’. And thereby, Brahman is none other than the Atman, the aspirant. Shankara concludes that bhāṣya by implying that as per the mantra, that which is meditated upon as ‘anya’ is abrahma, anātmā. Thus, according to Shankara, the terms ‘anyadevatā, devatāntara, bhinnadevatā’ all are synonyms and mean only those entities who are distinct from the Atman, the nirguna Brahman. Clearly, the deities Vishnu, etc. are all anyadevata-s, devatantara-s and bhinnadevata-s. It also follows that the term ‘vaiṣṇava-s’ of the BGB 9.25 refers to those committed to realize the Nirguṇa Brahman and not to those who are devoted to a deity ‘Viṣṇu.’

Not having grasped these subtle points of Advaita, a scholar of the Ramanuja following, who went on to author a Tamil book: Shankararum Vaiṇavamum, has completely misrepresented Advaita/Shankara and ended up misguiding his gullible readers. On p.7-8 of that Tamil book that can be downloaded from here: http://acharya.org/bk/pb/misc/SankararumVainavamum.pdf  he cites the Shankara commentary for BG 9.25 and concludes that ‘Shankara holds only Viṣṇu as the saguṇa brahman and all deities other than Vishnu to be jiva-s’.  He did not know that for Shankara ‘saguṇa is an effect and inferior.’ So, Shankara is upholding only the antithesis of what this author is ignorantly holding as Shankara’s view. Those who have taken this author as the authority on Shankara/Advaita have propagated that misconception to their gullible readers in turn.

Om Tat Sat