nirvANa sundarI

“What is bani [style], Amma? Nothing but the constant attempt to overcome flaws. Then, suddenly, you find the string is in tune. You hear it resounding, rich and true. In music, and in life.”

- 'Sangita Kalanidhi' Smt. D K Pattammal

kalAShoDashasaMpUrNaM nityAShoDashikAtmakam |
hetiShoDashasaMyuktaM kR^iShNaM vande jagatprabhum ||

vyAmohaprashamauShadhaM munimanovR^ittipravR^ittyauShadhaM
daityendrArtikarauShadhaM trijagatAM sa~njIvanaikauShadham |
bhAktAtyantahitauShaDhaM bhavabhayapradhvamsanaikauShadhaM
shreyaH prAptikarauShadhaM piba manaH shrIkR^iShNadivyauShadham ||

Those who get this in the current context, enjoy and those who don't, well ...get back to philosophical romanticism, you don't deserve anything better haha

On a side note, wonder if Haimanti Shukla still sings?

[Query] What are the pancha parvas for shreevidya upasak?

The pancha parvANi observed by a shrIvidyA upAsaka are detailed thus in rudrayAmaLa:

kR^iShNAShTamI-chaturdashyAvamAvAsyA cha pUrNimA |
sa~NkrAntiH pa~nchaparvANi teShu puNyadineShu cha ||

The puNya dinas are many such as:

devatA-tithi-nakShatra-vArayogeShu cheshvari |
somasUryoparAgeShu manvAdiShu yugAdiShu ||
gurujanmadine prApte tadgurostadgurorapi |
mAnavaughAdipuMsAM cha svajanmadivase.api cha ||
pIThopapIThagamane tapodIkShAvratotsave |
deshikAgamane puNye tIrthadaivatadarshane || etc.

namastripurabhairavyai

mahAnirvANa tantra presents before us a typical tAntric view of the four yugas and the state of humans in these yugas.

kR^ipAvatA bhagavatA brahmAntaryAminA purA |
prakAshitAshchaturvedAH sarvadharmopabR^iMhitAH ||
varNAshramAdiniyamA yatra chaiva pratiShThitAH |
taduktayogayaj~nAdyaiH karmabhirbhuvi mAnavAH |
devAn pitR^In prINayantaH puNyashIlAH kR^ite yuge ||

The Supreme One revealed through brahmA the four Vedas which formed the basis of all dharma and laid out various codes of conduct such as the varNAshrama dharma. Following the vedic injunction, the mortals were successful in pleasing the devas and the pitris and earned great merit as a result. The various practices taught by the veda included yajna, svAdhyAya, dhyAna, tapas, dayA etc.

kR^ite vyatIte tretAyAM dR^iShTvA dharmavyatikramam |
devoktakarmabhirmartyA na shaktAH sveShTasAdhane ||
bahukleshakaraM karma vaidikaM bhUrisAdhanam |
kartuM na yogyA manujAshchintAvyAkulamAnasAH |
tyaktuM kartuM na chArhanti sadA kAtarachetasaH ||

After the passing of kR^ita yiga, in the treat yuga, the mortals were unable to attain their desires through the vedic rites. The vedic rites were complex and required a lot of preparation (in terms of efforts and ingredients) and thus were not possible for most. As a result, most were unable to perform these rites but at the same time were also unwilling to abandon them completely. This led to confusion in the minds of men.

vedArthayuktashAstrANi smR^itirUpANi bhUtale |
tadA tvaM prakaTIkR^itya tapaHsvAdhyAyadurbalAn |
lokAnatArayaH pApAt duHkhashokAmayapradAt ||

To save those incapable of tapaH and svAdhyAya from sin (which is the chief cause for misery and disease), the Supreme revealed the smrti shAstras to the mortals and these shAstras explained the vedic intent or elaborated where required.

tato.api dvApare prApte smR^ityuktasukR^itojjhrite |
dharmArdhalope manuje AdhivyAdhisamAkule |
saMhitAdyupadeshena tvayaivoddhAritA narAH ||

With further decline in dharma in dvApara, to save the beings from pain and sickness (resulting of sins), the Supreme revealed various shAstras such as the samhitA-s.

AyAte pApini kalau sarvadharmavilopini |
durAchAre duShprapa~nche duShTakarmapravartake ||
na vedAH prabhavastatra smR^itInAM smaraNaM kutaH |
nAnetihAsayuktAnAM nAnAmArgapradarshinAm ||
bahulAnAM purANAnAM vinAsho bhavitA vibho |
tadA lokA bhaviShyanti dharmakarmabahirmukhAH ||

With the onset of the wretched kali yuga, Vedas lose their authority, smrtis are forgotten, and itihAsa and purANas are lost in oblivion. As a result, the men abandon dharma and prescribed duties. This makes the men poor, sick, greedy, cruel, wicked and indulging in various sins such as stealing, parastrIsamsarga etc.

viprA shUdrasamAchArAH sandhyAvandanavarjitAH |
ayAjyayAchakA lubdhA durvR^ittAH pApakAriNaH ||
shUdrAnnabhojinaH krUrA vR^iShalIratikAmukAH |
naiva pAnAdiniyamo bhakShyAbhakShyavivechanam |
tvayA kR^itAni tantrANi jIvoddhAraNahetave ||

brAhmaNas behave like shUdras and abandon all discretion in terms of what one eats, drinks and indulge in prohibited activities such as shUdrAnnabhojana and lust after lowly women^*. For the sake of deliverance of such beings in the age of kali, tantras were created by the Supreme.

* vR^iShalI is a term that yama discusses at length in his smR^iti. It can mean:

a. A shUdra strI
b. A women undergoing menses
c. A childless woman or vandhyA
d. An unmarried girl who has attained maturity
e. An adulteress who cheats on her husband
f. A woman who has abandoned her husband

Various prAyashchittas are prescribed such as prAjApatya for a year, several chAndrAyaNas, govrata etc. in case of intercourse with such a woman.

Shankara attacks these arguments from the standpoint of commonsense realism. The external objects are real because they are plainly perceived. Unless they were real, how would representation be possible? How else to explain the diversity of cognitions, for cognitions are differentiated only by their objects? It is true that cognitions and object are apprehended together but they are not apprehended as identical. Curiously, Shankara does not raise any objection from the public character of the external objects, an objection which vasubandhu had anticipated and answered. But Shankara does raise another objection which vasubandhu had sought to answer and, that is, that dream objects are sublated by waking experience and hence are not comparable to the stable objects of the waking world. Vasubandhu had answered that the sublation of dream objects occurs only after one has ceased to dream.

Shankara raises the further objection that if cognition and its object are identical, each momentary cognition would be exhausted by its own self-cognition and there would be no possibility of any comparison of ideas. None of the Buddhist doctrines could then be established. Even more serious is an assumption that an idea may cognize itself and thus the subject and the object may become one. The fact is that the act of cognition reveals as its content an object different from itself and the cognitive act itself is apperceived by the witnessing consciousness or the Self. To the natural Buddhist objection that this self-luminous witnessing consciousness or sAkShin is simply another name for the Buddhist vijnAna, Shankara replies that the Buddhist ‘ideas have the attributes of originating, passing away, being manifold, and so on’ while the vedAntic Self is one and eternal.

This sudden turn in discussion shows how near Shankara and Buddhism are, separated by a wall of glass, as it were. It is worth noting that in discussing vijnAnavAda Shankara eschews the discussion of what constituted the higher truth of that system. As in the case of sarvAstivAda he is content to attack the Buddhist theories of empirical existence from his own empirical standpoint. He does not consider the principle of vijnaptimAtratA which represents the ultimate truth for the vijnAnavAdin. vijnaptimAtratA is non-empirical, non-dual consciousness beyond the scope of particularities of conceptual thought. it is, however, the ground which gets dirempted into the illusive distinction of subject and object and their multifarious diversities. This is comparable to the advaitic doctrine of Brahman as knowledge and the ground of the world illusion including subjective individualities. It needs to be noted that since the vijnaptimAtratA is identified with tathatA and the dharmakAya, it must be deemed timeless.

The Buddhists themselves noted the similarity of their doctrines to the upaniShadic advaita. shAntarakShita declares that the upaniShadic view rightly regards the world as the manifestation of knowledge but ‘errs a little’ in speaking of it as eternal. How can the eternal be the ground of an ever-changing diversity of manifestation? This criticism misses the fact that the world is an illusion superimposed on Brahman, not its causal transformation for Shankara. The fact is that both Shankara and Buddhists criticize each other from logical principles they hold appropriate for empirical existence and from which they exempt their own ultimate truth or paramArtha.

Shankara gives short shrift to the mAdhyamika doctrine which he interprets literally as the doctrine ‘that everything is empty (i.e. that absolutely nothing exists)’. This ‘is contradicted by all means of right knowledge, and therefore requires no special refutation. For this apparent world, whose existence is guaranteed by all the means of knowledge, cannot be denied, unless someone should find out some new truth (based on which he could impugn its existence)’. It deserves to be noted that Shankara is here speaking entirely from the empirical standpoint because otherwise he himself regards the world as illusory as also all the ‘right means of knowledge; including the scriptures as part of the realm of Error. Since the shUnyavAdins themselves concede pragmatic reality to the empirical world, his criticism has hardly any force. in fact, it was the shUnyavAdins who first made systematic use of this distinction of two standpoints, absolute and empirical, which is found in Shankara also. As is well-known even the dialectical method propounded by nAgArjuna found a favorable echo in some of the later followers of Shankara.

contd ...

bhAgavata

bhAgavata purANa is the sweet nectar that flows from the mouth of bhagavAn shuka and is capable of rejuvenating rasa in minds dried by incorrect pursual of karma and jnAna kANDas:

nigamakalpatarorgaLitaM phalaM
shukamukhAdamR^itadravasaMyutam |
pibata bhAgavataM rasamAlayaM
muhuraho rasikA bhuvi bhAvukAH ||

vallabhIya and chaitanya sampradAya-s hold bhAgavata on a pedestal higher than even the prasthAnatrayI – upaniShad, brahmasUtra and gItA. vallabhAchArya describes bhAgavata as the samAdhi bhAShA (the language of samAdhi or divine absorption) in his shuddhAdvaita mArtANDa:

vedA shrIkR^iShNavAkyAni vyAsasUtrANi chaiva hi |
samAdhibhAShA vyAsasya pramANaM tat chatuShTayam ||

The lofty principles revealed to vyAsa in a state of samAdhi constitute the contents of bhAgavata purANa. The aspects of sarasa and mAdhurya which form the core of vallabhIya and chaitanya sampradAyas necessarily owe their origin to bhAgavata. While the literary style of bhAgavata is characterized by lAlitya, its contents are marked by complex theology and metaphysics. Hence goes the popular saying:

vidyAvatAM bhAgavate parIkShA |

Antiquity and Authorship

dayAnanda sarasvatI seems to be the first popular personality who endorsed bopadeva’s authorship of bhAgavata purANa. However, scholars such as baladeva upAdhyAya argue that bhAgavata was already popular much before the period of bopadeva (thirteenth century). Bopadeva however was certainly smitten by this purANa and composed three independent works to popularize bhAgavata:

1. harilIlAmR^ita or bhAgavatAnukramaNI – An index to the chapters of bhAgavata.
2. muktAphala – A classification of the verses of bhAgavata on the basis of the navarasas or nine emotions.
3. paramahamsapriyA – Though this work is listed by other commentators, it now seems to be lost.

The following arguments are presented by scholars who disagree with bopadeva’s authorship of bhAgavata.

1. hemAdri, a samakAlIna of bopadeva, quotes bhAgavata as pramANa in his chaturvarga chintAmaNi. It is highly unlikely that hemAdri would quote the work of a contemporary author as pramANa in his work on dharma shAstra.
2. Ananda tIrtha or madhvAchArya, the founder of dvaita philosophy, authored a work – bhAgavata tAtparya nirNaya and held bhAgavta to be the panchama veda. He clearly does not regard bhAgavata to be a work of bopadeva .
3. rAmAnuja, in his vedAntatattvasAra, quotes veda-stuti of bhAgavata and also several verses from the ekAdasha skandha. This indicates that bhAgavata was prevalent before eleventh century.
4. bhagavAn gauDapAdAchArya quotes the verse – jagR^ihe pauruSham rUpam – in his panchIkaraNa vyAkhyA and the following verse in his TIkA on the uttara gItA:

shreyaHsR^itiM bhaktimudasya te vibho
klishyanti ye kevalabodhalabdhaye |
teShAmasau kleshala eva shiShyate
nAnyadyathA sthUlatuShAvaghAtinAm || [bhAgavata - 10, 14, 4]

This would place bhAgavata at least before sixth century.

Chapters

bhAgavata consists of twelve skandhas and twelve thousand verses. There seems to be some confusion regarding the number of chapters in bhAgavata though. Padma purANa lists the number of chapters as 332 and the same number is presented by chitsukhAchArya as well:

dvAtriMshat-trishataM cha yasya vilasacChAkhAH etc.

But in the version of bhAgavata available currently, one can see 335 chapters. To account for this anomaly, some commentators have considered chapters 12, 13 and 14 in dashama skandha to be prakShipta. However, Jiva gosvAmin agrees with the number 335 and interprets ‘dvAtrimshat-trishatam’ through this vigraha: dvAtriMshat cha trayashcha shatAni cha.

Commentaries

a. shrIdhara svAmin – bhAvArtha dIpikA

The commentary of shrIdhara svAmin is considered to be the oldest and most authentic among the various commentaries on bhAgavata. Scholars place this work around eleventh century. From the mangala shloka in this work, it becomes known that shrIdhara svAmin was an upAsaka of Lord nrsimha. This observation is also justified by the following popular verse:

vyAso vetti shuko vetti rAjA vetti na vetti vA |
shrIdharaH sakalaM vetti shrInR^isiMha-prasAdataH ||

The respected accorded to this commentary by Chaitanya is well-known. shrIdhara svAmin was an advaitin belonging to the lineage of shankarAchArya and the acceptance of his work by others such as chaitanya speaks for the authenticity of his commentary. It is said that shrIdhara svAmin composed this commentary according to the order of his guru paramAnanda in kAshI. After the completion of the work, when the book was placed amidst various other existing commentaries (which are all now probably lost) in the shrine of bindu mAdhava, the Lord is described to have placed shrIdharI vyAkhyA above the others, signifying its greatness. In this commentary, there is a mention of an older commentary on bhAgavata by the vedAntin chitsukhAchArya. rAdhAramaNadAsa gosvAmin has authored a vyAkhyA named dIpanI on this commentary.

b. Sudarshana sUrI – shukapakShIyA

Sudarshana sUrI, the author of shrutaprakAshikA on rAmAnuja’s shrIbhAShya, is a follower of vishiShTAdvaita. He is known to have lived in fourteenth century. He is known to have attained parama pada when the obnoxious Moslems attacked shrIranga kShetra and butchered Hindus.

c. vIrarAghava – bhAgavata chandrikA

Again following vishiShTAdvaita siddhAnta, this commentary is more elaborate than that of sudarshana sUrI. Son of one vatsagotrIya brAhmaNa named shrIshailaguru, vIrarAghava seems to have lived in fourteenth century. Most shrIvaiShNavas today study this commentary to understand bhAgavata.

d. Vijayadhvaja – padaratnAvaLI

Though madhva authored bhAgavata tAtparya nirNaya, it is not a commentary per say. To fulfill the requirement for a commentary representing the dvaita view, vijayadhvaja authored padaratnAvaLI.

e. vallabhAchArya – subodhinI

vallabhA has authored subodhinI to showcase the tenets of shuddhAdvaita philosophy founded by him. However, it is not known whether he commented on the entire purANa or only parts of it (as available today).

f. Shukadeva – siddhAnta pradIpa

This commentary is reflective of the philosophy of nimbArka. Shukadeva begins the commentary by saluting hamsa bhagavAn, sanatkumAra, nArada and nimbArka.

g. sanAtana gosvAmin – brhad vaiShNava toShiNI

Though chaitanya regarded the shrIdharIya vyAkhyAna as authentic, some of his followers authored independent commentaries on bhAgavata. sanAtana gosvAmin comments solely on the dashama skandha.

h. jIva gosvAmin – krama sandarbha

The famous commentary of jIva gosvAmin, a follower of chaitanya, covers the entire bhAgavata. A great scholar of bhAgavata, jIva gosvAmin authored ShaT sandarbhas to bring out the intricacies of the purANa and in that light, this commentary can be regarded as the saptama sandarbha.

i. vishvanAtha chakravartI – sArArthadarshinI

Again a follower of chaitanya sampradAya, vishvanAtha in this commentary attempts to consolidate older commentaries such as those by shrIdhara, jIva etc.

jIva gosvAmin, in his tattva sandarbha, lists other lesser known commentaries such as: hanumadbhAShya, vAsanA bhAShya, sambandhokti, vidvatkAmadhenu, tattvadIpikA, bhAvArthadIpikA, paramahamsapriyA, shukahR^idaya etc. There are also other relatively modern commentaries such as anvitArtha prakAshikA, vamshIdharI, chUrNikA etc.

contd...

shrImAtre namaH
shrIprAsAda parameshvarAya namaH
shrIlakShmInR^isiMha parabrahmaNe namaH

mAtaH kShaNaM snapaya mAM tava vIkShitena
mandAkShitena sujanairaparokShitena |
kAmAkShi karmatimirotkarabhAskareNa
shreyaskareNa madhupadyutitaskareNa ||

We have discussed the status of devI bhAgavata as a mahApurANa before. As many of us in the maNDalI complete our annual tradition of the ritualistic pArAyaNa of this splendid purANa, shrI Ravindra Shukla-ji pulled us back into discussing this topic some more. However, this time, we are accompanied by the feeling of satisfaction on account of having completed the current navarAtrotsava and the obligatory rites for mahApaurNamI with some amount of success. Every time something is written here, we try to remind ourselves this:

uttamo nAtivaktA syAdadhamo bahubhAShate |
na kAnchane dhvanistAdR^ik yAdR^ik kAmsye prajAyate ||

At every step, it is the grace of brahmAstra-nAyikA that has been guiding us. We have therefore finally concluded that if someone deserves to be called kShipraprasAdinI or karuNArasArNavA, it most certainly has to be bhagavatI pItAmbarA. And to follow the instructions of shrI shukla-ji, a direct disciple of Swamiji Maharaj of Datia (known verily as the personification of pItAmbarA), is a gesture of gratitude towards the infallible mahAvidyA for all the favors received.

It is common knowledge that there are two bhAgavata purANas: viShNu and devI, one of which holds the status of a mahApurANa. Many hold viShNu bhAgavata as the mahApurANa whereas some others including the great bhAskararAya consider devI bhAgavata to be the mahApurANa. There is also a class of scholars which believes that there really is no authentic purANa named devI-bhAgavata. Another set of scholars question the validity of viShNu bhAgavata as a genuine purANa and conclude this to be the work of one bopadeva. However, it seems rather incorrect to assume that there is no mention of two bhAgavatas in the list of purANas. It is acceptable to all that there is at least one genuine purANa named bhAgavata which is a mahApurANa. Thus, it is the authenticity of the upa-purANa that remains to be validated.

kUrma, gAruDa and padma purANas list a bhAgavata in their list of upa-purANas. hemAdri, in his dAna prakaraNa, quotes the following verse from kUrma purANa:

anyAnyupapurANAni munibhiH kathitAni tu |
AdyaM sanatkumAroktaM nArasimhamataH param |
parAsharoktaM pravaraM tathA bhAgavatAhvayam ||

Thus, an upa-purANa named bhAgavata gets listed here.

In the dvitIyAmsha of the tattva-rahasya khaNDa of garuDa purANa, the first chapter of dharma kANDa deals with the classification of mahApurANas and upa-purANas into sAttvika, rAjasika and tAmasika. It is stated there:

purANaM bhAgavataM daurgaM nandiproktaM tathaiva cha |
pAshupatyaM raiNukaM cha bhairavaM cha tathaiva cha ||

In the chapter dealing with bhAgavata mAhAtmya in padma purANa, while describing the upa-purANas, it is said:

shaivamAdipurANaM cha devIbhAgavataM tathA |

Great scholars such as shrI madhusUdana sarasvatI and nAgojI bhaTTa list a ‘bhAgavata’ among upa-purANas.

However, one needs to observe that devI bhAgavata describes itself as a mahApurANa. In the very first chapter of this purANa, there is a reference to the purANa being fifth among the mahApurANas:

tatra bhAgavataM puNyaM pa~nchamaM vedasammitam |

purANas differ in their views on various topics and the mahApurANatva of bhAgavata is once such subject. For example, vaiShNava purANas categorize shaiva purANas as tAmasika. Not to be left behind, skAnda purANa states:

dashashaivapurANAni sAttvikAni vidurbudhAH |
tAmasAni cha chatvAri vaiShNavAni prachakShate || etc.

From the statement in kUrma purANa (anyAnyupapurANAni munibhiH kathitAni tu), some assume that the upa-purANas were narrated by sages other than vedavyAsa. As devI-bhAgavata is a work of vyAsa, some present this as the proof of mahApurANatva of this purANa. But if one observes some purANas narrated by vyAsa such as shaiva and vAyavIya and pay attention to the fact that these are sometimes termed as upa-purANas, it becomes clear that this proof is no good to establish the mahApurANatva of devI bhAgavata.

Shaiva and matsya purANas clearly describe devI bhAgavata as the mahApurANa. In the uttarakhaNDa of shiva purANa (madhyeshvara mAhAtmya), it is said:

yatra vaktA svayaM taNDe brahmA sAkShAcchaturmukhaH |
tasmAdbrAhmaM samAkhyAtaM purANaM prathamaM mune ||
padmakalpasya mAhAtmyaM tatra tasmAdudIritam |
tasmAtpAdmaM samAkhyAtaM purANaM cha dvitIyakam ||
parAsharakR^itaM yattu purANaM viShNubodhakam |
tadeva vyAsakathitaM putrapitrorabhedataH ||
yatra pUrvottare khaNDe shivasya charitaM bahu |
shaivametat purANaM hi purANaj~nA vadanti cha ||
bhagavatyAshcha durgAyAshcharitaM yatra vidyate |
tattu bhAgavataM proktaM na tu devIpurANakam ||
nAradoktaM purANaM tu nAradIyaM prachakShate |
yatra vaktA bhavattaNDe mArkaNDeyo mahAmuniH ||
mArkaNDeya purANaM hi tadAkhyAtaM cha saptamam |
agniyogAttadAgneyaM bhaviShyokterbhaviShyakam ||
vivartanAdbrahmaNastu brahmavaivartamuchyate |
li~Ngasya charitokteshcha purANaM lai~Ngamuchyate ||
varAhasya cha vArAhaM purANaM dvAdashaM mune |
yatra skandaH svayaM shrotA vaktA sAkShAnmaheshvaraH ||
tattu skAndaM samAkhyAtaM vAmanasya tu vAmanam |
kaurmaM kUrmasya charitaM mAtsyaM matsyasya kIrtitam ||
garuDastu svayaM vaktA yattadgAruDasaMj~nakam |
brahmANDacharitoktatvAdbrahmANDaM parikIrtitam ||

Thus, the list of mahApurANas furnished by shiva purANa is as below:

1. Brahma purANa
2. Padma purANa
3. viShNu purANa
4. shiva purANa
5. devI bhAgavata purANa
6. nArada purANa
7. mArkaNDeya purANa
8. agni purANa
9. bhaviShya purANa
10. brahmavaivarta purANa
11. li~Nga purANa
12. varAha purANa
13. skanda purANa
14. vAmana purANa
15. kUrma purANa
16. matsya purANa
17. garuDa purANa
18. brahmANDa purANa

Thus, the statement in devI bhAgavata listing itself as the fifth among the mahApurANas finds puShTi in shiva purANa. Also, by stating - bhagavatyAshcha durgAyAshcharitam - this purANa leaves no room for further speculation.

Thus, the vyutpatti of the word bhAgavata, based on definitions in devI bhAgavata and shiva purANa-s, would be: bhagavatyA idam bhAgavatamiti. Moreover, durgArchanatara~NgiNI quotes the following verse from the yAmaLa:

navarAtre tu deveshi daurgaM bhAgavataM paThet |
japet saptashatIM chaNDIM niyamena samAhitaH ||

Also, matsya purANa states that every upa-purANa has its origin in one of the eighteen mahApurANas. If we consider kAlikA purANa as an example, it is said:

yadidaM kAlikAkhyaM tanmUlaM bhAgavataM smR^itam |

Clearly, the reference to here is to devI bhAgavata as the mahApurANa. In general, shaiva upa-purANas originate from shaiva mahA-purANas and vaiShNava upa-purANas have their origin in vaiShNava mahA-purANas. Following the same pattern, the parent of kAlikA purANa, which is an upa-purANa, is devI bhAgavata, the mahA-purANa.

Support to the status of mahApurANa of devI bhAgavata can be seen in Aditya purANa as well:

yA jaghne mahiShaM daityaM krUraM vR^itrAsuraM tathA |
sAdya raktAsuraM hatvA svArAjyaM te pradAsyati ||

Here there is a mention of slaying of a demon named vR^itra by parAmbA and this episode is discussed in no other purANa with the exception of devI bhAgavata. Every other purANa describes the slaying of vR^itra at the hands of indra but not parAmbA.

contd ...

The externalization referred to above is the manifestation of a non-ego (anahambhAva) within the pure Ego (shuddha Atman), appearing as external to the limited ego; it is the root Ignorance (mUlA.avidyA) of the vedAnta. This non-ego is called avyakta (unmanifest) or jaDa shakti (matter). But the freedom or the spiritual power of the samvit, known as chit shakti, is beyond this Ignorance, but to this power the advaita vedAnta, as usually interpreted, seems to be a stranger. As avidyA or the material power issues out of the spiritual power, the ultimate source of all contingent existence, there is no discrepancy in the statement, often found in shAkta works such as the jnAna khaNDa of tripurA rahasya – that power has three distinct states of its existence:

a. During the universal dissolution, when the Self is free from all vikalpas, shakti exists as pure chit shakti, i.e. parA prakR^iti of the gItA. As mirror is the life of the image, it is the life-principle of jIva and jagat which are sustained by it.

b. When after praLaya the pure state ceases and when although there is no vikalpa as such, there is yet a tendency in that direction, the power is called mAyA shakti.

c. But when the vikalpas are fully developed and materiality becomes dense, shakti appears as avidyA or jaDa shakti or prakR^iti. When mAyA and avidyA are subsumed under one name, it is called jaDa prakR^iti (i.e. the aparA prakR^iti of the gItA).

It has already been observed that the appearance of the universe in creation (sR^iShTi) follows upon the self-limitation of the divine power and cosmic end in dissolution (praLaya) follows from the self-assertion of the same power. After the period of cosmic night is over, the Supreme will, in co-operation with the mature adR^iShTas of the jIvas, manifests, only partially as it were, the essence of the Self, whereon the Self is revealed as limited. The appearance of limitation is thus the emergence of not-self, known as avidyA or jaDa shakti, called also differently by the names of void (shUnya), prakR^iti, absolute negation, darkness (tamas) and AkAsha. This is the first stage in the order of creation and represents the first limitation imposed on the Limitless. The erroneous belief, generated through the freedom of the Self, that the Ego is partial and not full and universal (pUrNa) is responsible for the appearance of this something which being a portion of the Self is yet outside of it and free from self-consciousness and is described as not-self or by any other name as shown above.

Thus the Supreme Reality splits itself spontaneously, as it were, into two sections – one appearing as the subject and the other as the object. pUrNAhamtA which is the essence of Supreme Reality disappears after this cleavage: the portion to which limited egoism attaches being the subject and the other portion free from egoism the object. The object as thus making its appearance is the un-manifest (avyakta) Nature from which the entire creation emanates and which is perceived by the subject as distinct from itself.

contd ...

Part 3