HARI-HARA ABHEDA IN THE SARVA-MATA-SANGRAHA

The work ‘sarva mata sangraha’ is authored by an advaitin whose identity is unknown.

https://sa.wikisource.org/s/asc

There, the author says that there are three divisions of mimamsa:

purva mimamsa – sutras authored by Jaimini and bhashya by Shabara Swamin

Uttara mimamsa – is again divided into two: with emphasis in saguna and nirguna brahman. This has eight chapters put together, the sutras being authored by Veda Vyasaउत्तरमीमांसा तु द्विरूपा सगुणनिर्गुणब्रह्मनिष्ठा अष्टाध्यायमिता व्यासप्रणीता ।  (he does not say that the author of the sutras is kAchakritsna).The one with saguna brahman as its subject matter is called ‘devata kanda’ and has four chapters.  The bhashya kaara for this is Sankarsha.

तत्र सगुणब्रह्मनिष्ठा देवताकाण्डात्मिकाध्यायचतुष्टयवती ।
इह भाष्यकारः सङ्कर्षः ।
तत्र प्रथमेऽध्याये सर्वेषां मन्त्रवि(प्र)शेषाणां देवतातत्त्वप्रतिपादने तात्पर्यमिति प्रतिपादितम् ।

In the first chapter the purport lies in establishing that all mantras have a devata for their tattva.

द्वितीये विध्यर्थवादादेर्वेदशेषस्य मन्त्रदेवताशेषत्वमुपपाद्यते ।

In the second chapter all injunctions and eulogies of the veda are subsidiary to mantra and devata is established.

तृतीये देवतातत्त्वं स्वेच्छाविग्रहत्वादिगुणगणालङ्कृतमिति दर्शितम् ।

In the third chapter it is shown that the ‘devata tattva’ is characterized by the power to take a form by mere will, etc. and is endowed with numerous attributes.

चतुर्थे तत्तद्देवताप्रसादतस्तत्तल्लोकवेषविभूषणैश्वर्यानन्दावाप्तिलक्षणं देवतोपासनफलं निर्णीतम् ।

In the fourth is shown the fruit of upasana on any given devata as attaining to the abode of that devata and be dressed as the devata is and enjoy lordship and joy.

एवं मध्यममीमांसा सर्वदेवतात्मनो हरेः प्रतिपादिकेति सगुणब्रह्मपरा भवति ।

Thus, since the ‘madhyama mimamsa’ establishes Hari as the self of all devatas, this kAnDa is saguna-brahman specific.

Here ends the citing of the Sarva Mata Sangraha for the above section. The last sentence has led to a misconception among some who have no exposure to Vedanta to speculate that the Advaitin author of this work has accepted Hari as Saguna Brahman on the strength of this disputed madhyama kAnDa. It is disputed because Advaitins have not accepted it. Shankara never even hints at it even implicitly. What Shankara has said is just this much:  In the BSB 3.3.43:    तदुक्तं सङ्कर्षे — ‘नाना वा देवता पृथग्ज्ञानात्’ इति । तत्र तु द्रव्यदेवताभेदात् यागभेदो विद्यते ; नैवमिह विद्याभेदोऽस्ति, Nor any Acharyas of the advaita tradition have unequivocally spoken about the ‘devata kANDa’ that the sarva mata sangraha text talks about.  Be that as it may.

In order to disprove the conclusion that those who have misunderstood this work, the following is stated:

In the very subsequent part of this work, the author says:

ब्रह्मविष्णुरुद्रेन्द्रसोमसूर्यानिलानलादिदेवतासालोक्यादिसुखकामं प्रति देवताकाण्डं प्रवृत्तम् ।   He summarizes the ‘madhyama kAnDa’ (this is one of the many names this alleged kANDa has acquired: sankarSha, devatA, madhyama, daivi mimamsa, etc.’) by saying: This section is confined to cater to those who desire sense pleasures by going to the abodes of Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Indra, Soma, Surya, Vayu, Agni, etc. There they will be enjoying certain types of existence  called ‘sAlokya, SAmIpya, SArUpya and sAyujya’.  The author had used the word ‘vesha bhUSha’ earlier. The entrants to these lokas will be appearing similar to those lords of those lokas, One example is Jaya-Vijaya who appear just like Vishnu with four hands, shankha, chakra, etc.

However, those who have the sole aim of their life to transcend all samsara are candidates for the last portion: nirguna brahma specific.

The author, further down says that eighteen disciplines that do come under ‘vaidika’ have been blessed by the Parama Purusha, to Brahma, at the beginning of the Kalpa. The author cites some verses from the Shiva Purana (Vayaviya samhita):

एवमष्टादश विद्यास्थानानि ।
तान्येतानि कल्पादौ परमपुरुषेण ब्रह्मणेऽनुगृहीतानि ।
तथाच श्रीवायवीये-
“अङ्गानि वेदाश्चत्वारो मीमांसा न्यायविस्तरः ।
पुराणं धर्मशास्त्रं च विद्यां ह्येताश्चतुर्दश ॥
आयुर्वेदो धनुर्वेदो गान्धर्वश्चेत्यनुक्रमात् ।
अर्थशास्त्रं परं तस्माद् विद्यास्त्वष्टादश स्मृताः ॥
अष्टादशानामेतासां विद्यानां भिन्नवर्त्मनाम् ।
आदिकर्त्ता कविः साक्षाच्छूलपाणिरिति श्रुतिः ॥

The Foremost Creator, of these disciplines, the Seer of all the time distinctions, kavi, is none other than ShUlapAni as per the Veda.

स हि सर्वजगन्नाथः सिसृक्षुरखिलं जगत् ।
ब्रह्माणं विदधे साक्षात् पुत्रमग्रे सनातनम् ॥
तस्मै प्रथमपुत्राय ब्रह्मणे विश्वयोनये ।
विद्याश्चेमा ददौ पूर्वं विश्वस्थित्यर्थमीश्वरः” ॥
इति ।

He, ShUlapANi, is the Lord of the entire world, resolved to create the whole world. He directly created Brahma, his son, the ancient. To him, the first son, Brahma, the world-womb, Shiva imparted the 18 disciplines for the preservation of the world. Since these vidyas would be difficult to be protected and propagated, ….the Lord Shiva took the form of Veda Vyasa and condensed the huge corpus.

The verse not cited by the author, from the Shiva purana, occurring next to the last verse cited above:

पालनाय हरिं देवं रक्षाशक्तिं ददौ ततः ॥ ७.१,१.३०
मध्यमं तनयं विष्णुं पातारं ब्रह्मणो ऽपि हि ॥ ७.१,१.३०

In order to protect the created world, Shiva gave the power to his middle son Hari.

तानि च विद्यास्थानानि मरीच्यादिमुखेन ब्रह्मणा अस्मिंल्लोके प्रवर्त्तितानि युगेऽस्मिन्नल्पायुष्याल्पबुद्धित्वादिदोषाद् मनुष्यैः साकल्येन धारयितुमशक्यानीति परमेश्वरः स्वयमेव व्यासरूपी भूत्वा संक्षिप्तवान् ।

यथोक्तं द्वितीयस्कन्धे-

First, it is to be understood that the ‘madhyama’ kAnDa is giving a lakshana for saguna Brahman:

स्वेच्छाविग्रहत्वादिगुणगणालङ्कृतत्वम् and  सर्वदेवतात्मत्वम् [ In the third chapter it is shown that the ‘devata tattva’ is characterized by the power to take a form by mere will, etc. and is endowed with numerous attributes. the self of all devatas.

Now, both these lakshanas are eminently fulfilled in the Shiva purana verses the author cites.

The sagunaparatvam is decided only based on the lakshanas. So, even if the supposed Veda Vyasa/Jaimini/whoever-composed madhyama kAnda had identified ‘Hara’ instead of ‘Hari’ as that Devata, the author of this work would still have said: // Thus, since the ‘madhyama mimamsa’ establishes xxxx as the self of all devatas, this kAnDa is saguna-brahman specific. //

This is because, as for example, Sureshwaracharya has ruled: One Ishwara alone is ‘spoken of’ by various names such as Hari, Brahma and Pinaki.  So, whether it is Hari or Hara, it is the same for the Advaitin; the name is only an upalakshana, representative. That entity is not any way different from the others as there are no three real entities as even Anandagiri has confirmed.

This statement is directly contradicting the fundamental principles of Advaita:  // This again shows that ancient advaitins considered only Vishnu to be Saguna Brahman who is the inner soul of all other deities.//

 

The ‘only’ makes the Vishnu a finite entity, and therefore not SB:

And more importantly, the saguna brahman, whichever deity it is named, should not be really different from others as that will make that Brahman  finite on the basis of the defect of ‘vastu pariccheda.’ Shankara has said in the Taittiriya Bhashya for ananta: Brahman is ‘sarva ananyatvam’ – non-different from everything.  So, the Advaitin will never propose a saguna Brahman that is different from any other deity.  It is wrong to think that this definition is for Nirguna Brahman only.  Saguna Brahman is a representative for NB and the crucial svarupa lakshanas will have to inhere in SB too, as it inheres in every jiva.  it is over and above, and not instead, of these that attributes like sarvajnatva, sarvashaktitva, etc. are superimposed to make the SB. SB is jagatkaaranam.  If it is finite, being different from other deities, the fundamental jagatkAraNatvam itself will be vitiated. Thus nobody can superimpose their own misunderstanding of the Advaita shastra on the Advaitins starting from Shankara and make false claims that ‘Advaita accepts Vishnu only as saguna Brahman.’  There can’t be a greater caricature of Advaita than such proclamations.

Even the author of the present work is clearly seen as not accepting this erroneous proposition.  Like Shankara, Sridhara Swamin, he too cites the Shiva Purana that proclaim the Paratva of Shiva. There can’t be a greater irony than Sridhara Swamin citing the Shiva Purana in the Vishnu Purana commentary, that too to uphold Shiva paratva, just as Shankara has done by citing the very Shiva Purana in the Vishnu sahasra nama bhashya to say ‘Shiva is the Supreme Cause.’ In the Sarva mata sangraha too, the author has cited the Shiva Purana where Shiva is shown as the progenitor of Brahma and Vishnu as well.  The Shvetashvatara mantra ‘yo brahmANam vidadhAti purvam…’ is exactly versified here.

The above write-up is in response to a misconceived idea stated here:

quote:

https://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_3.html

35. Is this portion of the saMkarShakANDa that proclaims Vishnu as the parabrahman accepted by all, or only by some schools of Vedanta? It is reported by some indologists that these four sUtras are nowhere to be found in extant editions of the Sankarsha Kanda. What do you say?

Ans. This stems from the wrong notion that some of the sources used by Vedantins of certain schools are of “questionable authenticity”. To a true vaidika, such a doubt should not arise as all traditional vedAntins accept it.

For the record anyway, let us answer this. Swami Vedanta Desikan, Madhvacharya, and Jayatirtha have all quoted the four sUtras beginning “ante harau… brahmetyAcakShate”.

The “sarvamata saMgraha” which is the work of a post-Madhva advaitin mentions the following detail about saMkarShakANDa, confirming that the above four sUtras were originally present in the concluding portion of that work:

“evaM madhyamamImAMsA sarvadevatAtmano hareH pratipAdiketi saguNabrahmaparA bhavati”

[Thus, the conclusion of the madhyama-mImAMsA shows that its object is the Saguna Brahman, who is Hari, the antarAtmA of all devatas.]

This again shows that ancient advaitins considered only Vishnu to be Saguna Brahman who is the inner soul of all other deities.

unquote.Om Tat Sat