The Vibhutis of Brahman are non-different from Brahman  

The Vibhutis of Brahman are non-different from Brahman
In the Bhagavadgita 10th chapter, which is called ‘Vibhuti Yoga’, the Lord specifies a list of vibhuti-s, excellent manifestations of Brahman, and concludes the discourse by declaring that ‘what is the use of knowing just a sample of My vibhutis? I am the Svarupa of the entire creation, of which the vibhuti-s are just a part.’ Shankara brings out the purport of the Lord’s statement.

अथवा बहुनैतेन किं ज्ञातेन तवार्जुन ।
विष्टभ्याहमिदं कृत्स्नमेकांशेन स्थितो जगत् ॥ ४२ ॥

अथवा बहुना एतेन एवमादिना किं ज्ञातेन तव अर्जुन स्यात् सावशेषेण । अशेषतः त्वम् उच्यमानम् अर्थं शृणु — विष्टभ्य विशेषतः स्तम्भनं दृढं कृत्वा इदं कृत्स्नं जगत् एकांशेन एकावयवेन एकपादेन, सर्वभूतस्वरूपेण इत्येतत् ; तथा च मन्त्रवर्णः — ‘पादोऽस्य विश्वा भूतानि’ (ऋ. १० । ८ । ९० । ३) इति ; स्थितः अहम् इति ॥ ४२ ॥
Shankara says: The vibutis listed in this chapter by Bhagavan are only representational and not exhaustive (and it is impossible to do that as they are infinite as the Lord says in the earlier verse). Brahman is holding the entire creation with just one ‘part’, as being the ‘sarva bhuta svarupa’. [This means, Brahman is the svarupa of the entire creation, consisting of all individuals, without exception.]

Anandagiri says:

 न हि विभूतिषु उक्तासु ज्ञातासु सर्वं ज्ञायते कासाञ्चिदेव विभूतीनां उक्तत्वात् इत्यर्थः ।
तर्हि केनोपदेशेन अल्पाक्षरेण सर्वोऽर्थो ज्ञातुं शक्यते । तत्राह – अशेषत इति । विशेषतः स्तम्भनं विधरणं सर्वभूतस्वरूपेण सर्वप्रपञ्चोपादानशक्त्युपाधिकेन एकेन पादेन कृत्स्नं जगत् विधृत्य स्थितोऽस्मि इति सम्बन्धः । तत्रैव श्रुतिं प्रमाणयति -तथा चेति । तदनेन भगवतः नानाविधाः विभूतीः ध्येयत्वेन ज्ञेयत्वेन च उपदिश्यन्ते । सर्वप्रपञ्चात्मकं ध्येयं रूपं दर्शयित्वा “त्रिपादस्यामृतं दिवि“ इति प्रपञ्चाधिकं निरुपाधिकं तत्त्वं उपदिशता परिपूर्णसच्चिदानन्दैकतानः तत्पदलक्ष्योऽर्थो निर्धारितः
[There is not going to be complete knowledge by knowing just a few of the vibhutis. How then the complete knowledge is gained? It is by meditating upon and knowing Brahman as ‘sarva prapanchaatmakam’, the Self of the entire creation. This is the sopadhika rupam and the nirupadhika rupa of Brahman is that which transcends creation. This is the lakshyartha (as distinct from the vaachyartha) of Brahman, Tat.
Madhusudana Saraswati says:   न मद्व्यतिरिक्तं किंचिदस्तिपादोऽस्य विश्वा भूतानि त्रिपादस्यामृतं दिवि इति श्रुतेः।  [‘There is nothing that is different from Me’ is the purport of the Lord’s words and the Purushasukta passage.]
From all the above sample of commentaries, we come to know that the vibhuti-s are non-different from Brahman. If they are different from Brahman, Brahman cannot be held to be Purnam, Sarvam, as it will be subject to the defect of ‘vastu paricchinnatvam’ limited by objects that are different from it.
 
In the Vishnu Sahasra Nama bhashya too, at the beginning itself, Shankara specifies: अत्र नामसहस्रे आदित्यादिशब्दानामर्थान्तरे प्रसिद्धानामादियाद्यर्थानां तद्विभूतित्वेन तदभेदात् तस्यैव स्तुतिरिति प्रसिद्धार्थग्रहणेऽपि तत्स्तुतित्वम् |   The names such as ‘Aditya’ which have a popular meaning of ‘Sun’ are also praises of Brahman alone since they (sun, etc. entities) are non-different from Brahman being Its vibhutis. Further Shankara, to substantiate his statement that the vibhutis are non-different from Brahman, cites verses from the Vishnu Puranam and also the very Bhagavadgita verse 10.42 that has been cited above.  And also the Mundakopanishad 2.2. 10 and 11 which says: everything in creation is Brahman alone, and ‘the vishvam, creation is verily the Purusha’ (which is the same as the Purusha sukta passage Shankara cites in the Gita commentary too.  
 
Shankara consistently upholds the above siddhanta throughout the VSN Bhashya. He cites from the Shiva Purana which says ‘Shiva is the Supreme Cause’ for the name ‘Rudra’. Sri Sridhara Swamin too, in the Vishnu Purana commentary cites two verses from the Shiva Purana to bring out the Shiva Paratvam, shivamayam jagat, while commenting on Rudra (and not Vishnu). Shankara cites the Kaivalyopanishat in the VSN bhashya for the word ‘Shiva’ and says that since this Upanishad teaches ‘abheda’, the name Shiva is a stuti of Hari (Brahman). For the name ‘soma’ too Shankara says ‘umapati’, alternatively.  Thus for Shankara every being, whether deity or any other in creation is a vibhuti of Brahman and thus non-different from Brahman.  If anything in creation is different from Brahman, not-brahman, then Brahman will not be Purnam, but vastu-paricchinnam, and therefore unfit to be known / realized for moksha. It will not be the Tat padartha. That is what the BGB and Anandagiri/Madhusudani have also stated as cited above.  The Vishnu Puranam verse Shankara cites says that ‘the stars, the various worlds (fourteen), forests, mountains, directions, rivers, oceans and everything that exists anywhere is Vishnu.  Thus, if anything is different from Vishnu, that ‘Vishnu’ will not be Purna, ananta. [The Shiva purana verses Sridhara swamin cites in the VP commentary too holds that the entire creation is Shiva mayam since it has Shiva as its Atma.] Hence alone this ‘Vishnu’ is not a deity but Brahman, Vyapanashiila. If anything, anyone, is different from Vishnu, there will be no vyaapanashiilatvam but only paricchinnatvam in Vishnu.  In other words, if Vishnu is a deity, different from Shiva, Brahma, etc. he will be vyaapya, pervaded, and not vyaapaka, the pervader. In the Kenopanishad Bhashya too Shankara holds ‘Vishnu, Ishvara, Indra, Prana, etc. to be Brahman, being upasyas.’  If they are not Brahman, they cannot be upasyas. And the crux of the BG 10.42 is to teach that one can meditate upon the creation, wholly or severally, as Brahman and eventually gain Brahman-realization. If anything in creation were not Brahman, this upaaya will be invalid.   
 
The gist of the above study is: The vibhuti-s of Brahman, which is the entire creation, is non-different from Brahman. 
 
Om Tat Sat         
%d bloggers like this: