Given that there have been multiple replies, let me try and give answer in a single reply to all the messages here. The first and foremost problem that I could see in the replies is that there is a confusion about what Bhagavadpada’s views on Saguna and Nirguna Brahmans. Former is wrongly identified as latter in some parts of the Bhashya while latter is imposed on former’s place which is also problematic.
Let us start with Brhadaranyaka 3.7.3. Can the Ishvara Narayana mentioned here be Nirguna Brahman? Bhagavadpada says that this Ishvara Narayana directs the Prithvi devata to do its duty (niyamati svavyApAre). Nirguna Brahman does not interact with this vyavahara world which is mithya and affected by Maya. Nirguna Brahman is not the controller/impeller. Such work is done by the Saguna Brahman forms only. This Narayana is called as the antaryamin of everyone (you, me and the whole world – tava mama sarvabhUtAnAm ca). Mundakopanishad (2.1.4) says sarvabhUtAntarAtmA and Bhagavadpada calls this entity as Vishnu and prathama sharIrin. Anandagiri’s tika about the bhUtas being pancabhUta or Bhagavadpada referring to the entity as virAT who is born out of Hiranyagarbha does not deny the fact that this entity (who is called Vishnu by the Acarya) is indeed Saguna Brahman/Ishvara/Paramatma. Bhagavadpada says in “yo(a)pi prathamajAt…arthamAha” (part of commentary on Mundaka 2-1-4) that the Virat, who is born out of the first-born Hiranyagarbha, in this Brahmanda is actually born out of the Purusha and is a form of the Purusha only. Further in Brahma Sutra Bhashya (1.1.24-25), the Acarya talks about Vaishvanara mentioned in Chandogya. The form mentioned there is very close to the form mentioned in Mundaka (2-1-4). But even without resorting to Brahma Sutra Bhashya, merely by studying the Mandukya Bhashya for the mantra in full, it is clear that the Virat is just another form of Ishvara/Paramapurusha.
Now, it is also claimed that Narayana in the Avatarika of Gita Bhashya is not Saguna Brahman. This claim would run into multiple problems. The very first sloka starts with ‘nArAyaNaH paro(a)vyaktAt..’. And then the next para says ‘sa bhagavAn sRSTvA..’. Acharya says that Narayana is that Bhagavan who created prajapatis like Marichi, Sanakadis etc. He continues that Bhagavan Vishnu who is called Narayana, the first creator, took avatara on this earth as Krishna (son of Devaki and Vasudeva) in order to protect the Brahmanatva of Brahmanas when adharma had raised its head. He has the six gunas (jnAna, aishvarya, shakti, bala, vIrya and teja) eternally and is unbound by karma. Still, through His own Maya, he became embodied (without karma). Nirguna Brahman cannot have these six gunas. The entire Avatarika of the Gita Bhashya is about how Parameshvara Narayana took avatara as Krishna and how he gave this upadesha to Arjuna. None of these acts can be done by Nirguna Brahmanas it remains aloof from this vyavaharika world. Rather, it is very clear that the Saguna Brahman is mentioned here.
It has been argued that pratyagatman of all beings must refer to Nirguna Brahman only. Even that is falsified by Acarya’s Gita Bhashya since he insists in several places that Ishvara is the antaryamin of everyone and how for the Jnani there is no difference between Ishvara and his own self. VasudevaH sarvam iti is meant to capture this equivalence between the jiva and Ishvara even in this world. After all, Ishvara (Saguna Brahman) becomes everything in this world. In Brahma Sutra Bhashya (2-2-42), Bhagavadpada states that he has no dispute with the Pancaratra system on the following aspects:
- Narayana is beyond avyakta. He is paramAtmA and sarvAtmA.
- That the Lord Narayana shall be worshipped through abhigamana, ijyA etc (reverential approach, offerings, meditation etc) as shruti and smriti state so
- That He takes multiple forms is also accepted. (Viz shruti vAkyas like ‘sa ekadhA bhavati tridhA bhavati’)
In Brahma Sutra Bhashya (2-2-44), he states that the entire earth from Brahma to stambha is manifestation of Bhagavan. Here, the Vasudeva/Narayana of Pancaratrins is certainly not the Nirguna Brahman but the Saguna Brahman/Ishvara who is worshipped through the pancakAla prakriyAs like abhigama, upAdAna, ijyA, svAdhyAya and yoga. The Narayana-Vasudeva of the Pancaratrins is indeed the caturbhuja Vaikunthavasi Vishnu. Worship of this Narayana is accepted as a means for moksha by the Acarya. It was also mentioned that Gita Bhashya on Gita (7-19) refers to Nirguna Brahman as vAsudevaH sarvam iti. But a study of the bhashya on the slokas before and after this sloka shows it very clearly that the Acarya is referring to the Saguna Brahman Ishvara as Vasudeva who is the antaryAmin of everything. Four types of worshippers are mentioned (7-16) of whom the jnani is the best as laid down in 7-19. Vasudeva is worshipped by those who have worldly needs as well (7-16). If Vasudeva refers to only Nirguna Brahman, this does not make sense. On the other hand, when Vasudeva is taken to mean Saguna Brahman, this would make perfect sense. Worshippers of other devas are compared with worshippers of Vasudeva who is the very atman (antaryamin) of everyone (7-20). The words ‘anyA devatAH’ in the bhashya makes it clear that comparison is between the Deva Vasudeva and the other devas. If it was a comparison between Nirguna Brahman and deities, we would not have come across such term. Anandagiri tika makes it even more clear with the term ‘ devatAntaranishTha’. In Gita 7-21 & 22, Bhagavadpada makes it clear that Vasudeva is Ishvara / Saguna Brahman as it is shown that He makes firm the faith of devotees in their ishta devatas and the He gives the fruits for their worship. Again, such action belongs to Saguna Brahman/Ishvara and not Nirguna Brahman. In 7-23, Acarya specifically uses the term Bhagavan which emphasizes that Saguna Brahman (with the gunas of Bhagavan) is being referred to. Hence, the claim that Gita 7-19 should be taken as referring to Nirguna Brahman is certainly not tenable. It is claimed on the wrong premise that only Nirguna Brahman can be referred with the word pratyagAtman. Whereas when we keep in mind that the entire world is manifestation of Ishvara (and thus Jiva = Ishvara), it is clear that the Acarya is referring to Ishvara only in 7-19 as well and the verses from 7-16 to 7-23 form a coherent whole.
Now, Subramaniam ji mentioned Kenopanishad bhashya 1.5 as mentioning that Vishnu, Ishvara, Prana, Indra etc which are different from the upasaka cannot be Brahman. I presume he meant 1.4 of the Upanishad. This is a wrong interpretation of what Acarya says here. The Purvapaksha is that Atman (Jiva) cannot be Brahman and that some deity who is different from the Jiva-upasaka (worshipper) should be the Brahman. Acarya’s siddhanta is that Atman is the Brahman. This refers to Nirguna Brahman. Upadhi vishista Ishvara is not the ultimate Brahman (Nirguna Brahman) is Acarya’s opinion. This is indeed the Advaita position. After all, Saguna Brahman is not the same as Nirguna Brahman. Latter is the only reality while the former is merely present in this Maya filled Vyavaharika universe.
The Acarya has referred to Nirguna Moksha in various parts of his commentaries but that does not mean that he has denied the presence of Saguna Moksha loka in this vyavaharika world. Brahma Sutra Bhashya 4-3-10 says ‘vishnoH paramam padam’. The argument is that this does not refer to Vaikuntha loka but videha mukti. Such an argument does not make sense since if it was videha mukti of nirguna kind which is mentioned by the Acarya, then the Acarya would have made such a statement directly. No need to have called it as Vishnu’s Paramam padam. Also, we do not see this term being used in the adhikarana on Videha mukti. Hence, the claim that Vishnu’s paramam padam is a reference to Videha mukti also does not stand up to scrutiny.
Whereas apart from Brahma Sutra Bhashya (4-3-10) and Kathopanishad bhashya (1-3-9) where the paramam padam of Vishnu is mentioned by Bhagavadpada, he mentions about the Saguna moksha loka (paramam padam) in several places in Gita Bhashya. In Gita 8-21, taddhAma paramam mama is explained by Acarya as “dhAma – sthAnam, paramam – prakRShTam, mama – vishNoH paramam padam ityarthaH”. He says that those who attain this dhAma of Vishnu do not return (moksha loka). Anandagiri even refers to the rk ‘tadviShNoH paramam padam’ as speaking about the dhAma mentioned here. The rk is certainly not about any nirguna moksha but about the loka of Vishnu. So, it is indeed an accepted position that sagunopasakas attain the Saguna moksha loka (which is mentioned by the term viShNoH paramam padam) and that they do not return from there. Acarya uses similar terms in other parts of Gita bhashya as well - ‘paramam padam vaiShNavam’ (11-38), ‘padam vaiShNavam…. yasmin pade gatAH – praviShTA…’ (15-4), ‘yad dhAma vaiShNavam padam gatvA prApya na nivartante..’ (15-6), ‘mama Ishvarasya prasAdAt avApnoti shAshvatam nityam vaiShNavam padam avyayam’ (18-56) and ‘viShNoH paramam padam avApsyasi..’(18-62). The bhashya and tika on 8-21, 15-4,5,6 especially support the idea that a saguna moksha loka is very much accepted by Bhagavadpada. A study of bhashya on Gita 18-55 also indicates that the Acarya talks about identity between Ishvara and Kshetrajna (jiva) – which is also a fact as per Acharya’s views in Brahma Sutra Bhashya (2-2-44) where he calls the entire world as manifestation of Ishvara. Even if taken to mean that 18-55 refers to nirguna moksha, it doesn’t deny or negate the existence of Saguna moksha loka which has been established by the Acarya in various other parts of his commentaries on Gita and Brahma Sutras.
Above all, the last sutra of Brahma Sutra (4-4-22), the Moksha loka of Saguna Brahma upasakas is indeed mentioned very clearly. In fact, a clear study of the sutras from 4-4-17 to 4-4-22 shall lay to rest any claim that Advaita does not accept a moksha loka for Saguna upasakas. In fact, this Saguna moksha loka is the place where the Saguna Brahman resides. It is His world. It is not the world of Caturmukha Brahma/Hiranyagarbha. The aishvarya of the released Jiva is specifically debated upon and their similarity/difference vis a vis the aishvarya of Saguna Brahman/Ishvara is also discussed. Also, Brahma Sutra Bhashya (4-3-14) makes it clear that one cannot ‘go’ to the Nirguna Brahman (as it has no place). The Acarya also states here the Saguna Brahman can also be called as sarvantaryamin (thus, passages like Gita 7-19, Brhadarayanaka 3-7-3 can indeed be applied to Saguna Brahman without any problem). The detailed discussion in 4-3-14 makes it clear that ‘going to moksha loka’ is associated with Sagunopasana only. Thus, when ‘going’ is mentioned (like 4-3-10,11), only a Saguna Moksha loka is suggested.
In conclusion, Sankara’s Advaita indeed accepts a moksha loka for Sagunopasakas from which there is no return and from where the realized soul can attain Nirguna Moksha. Saguna Brahman/Ishvara is indeed referred by the term Narayana, Vasudeva, Ishvara, Parameshvara etc. There is no need to bring in Nirguna Brahman everywhere.+++(4)+++