Ishwara and Grace

[Guest guest]

Namaskar,

who is really Ishwara ? Can a Jiva really become Ishwara ?

The statement ' Aham Brahmasmi' indicates that the Jiva is Brahman itself. But

is this

same as Ishwara ? How can somebody who has a blemish ( at least for unrealized

people who appear to have ... ) be equal to one who is the very personifcation

of absolute truth ? I understand that the blemish is only jiva's notion and

exists apparently due to Maya. But still, as long as the person is unrealized ,

isn't the world true for him? and so, doesn't it create a clear partition

between the two ?

 

How does one get grace ( I am not sure what the sanskrit word for this would be.

I am assuming its Kripaya ? )

I read Ramana Maharishi's words saying ' Grace is something that is already

there in abundance... ' . I don't understand this much. What does it really mean

?

 

Is Ishwara, the bestower of Grace give it to me ?

 

Regards

Guruprasad

 

 

 

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Guruprasadji,

 

I offer this explanation as far as my understanding of Advaita goes:

 

In Advaita, Ishwara is Brahman in the aspect of Creator and

Controller of the universe.

 

The jiva is Brahman, but because the blemish is seen, the jiva is not

equal to Brahman. The world is true to the jiva, but what it calls

truth is mixed with the blemish of falsity, and hence this "truth" is

called vyavaharika satya. When there is no blemish of falsity, the

unadulterated Truth stands revealed. This is paramarthika satya.

 

Grace is the very nature of Brahman. One has to become a fit

receptacle to receive the grace. When one becomes a fit receptacle,

the Guru arrives.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, Guru Venkat <v_vedanti> wrote:

> Namaskar,

> who is really Ishwara ? Can a Jiva really become Ishwara ?

> The statement ' Aham Brahmasmi' indicates that the Jiva is Brahman

itself. But is this

> same as Ishwara ? How can somebody who has a blemish ( at least for

unrealized people who appear to have ... ) be equal to one who is the

very personifcation of absolute truth ? I understand that the blemish

is only jiva's notion and exists apparently due to Maya. But still,

as long as the person is unrealized , isn't the world true for him?

and so, doesn't it create a clear partition between the two ?

>

> How does one get grace ( I am not sure what the sanskrit word for

this would be. I am assuming its Kripaya ? )

> I read Ramana Maharishi's words saying ' Grace is something that is

already there in abundance... ' . I don't understand this much. What

does it really mean ?

>

> Is Ishwara, the bestower of Grace give it to me ?

>

> Regards

> Guruprasad

>

>

>

>

>

> Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Naikji,

 

"In Advaita, Ishwara is Brahman in the aspect of Creator and

Controller of the universe.

 

The jiva is Brahman, but because the blemish is seen, the jiva is not equal to

Brahman. The world is true to the jiva, but what it calls truth is mixed with

the blemish of falsity, and hence this "truth" is called vyavaharika satya. When

there is no blemish of falsity, the unadulterated Truth stands revealed. This is

paramarthika satya. "

 

Brahman is only Nirgunam. Everyone is only this and finally reach this 'state',

if I may call it that. This I agree.

Ishwara is treated as 'Saguna Brahman'. And he is in the realm of Maya as much

as the jivas are. In Maya, I am different , you are different and so is Ishwara.

Isn't it ?

If we don't see the difference anymore we are standing apart from Maya, aren't

we ?

 

even in the Brahma Sutra it is said that for a realized Atma, he has the power

of everything except the task of running the universe. Now, why would this be

said if Jiva is Ishwara ? Is this not Ishwara's task ?

 

 

"Grace is the very nature of Brahman. One has to become a fit

receptacle to receive the grace. When one becomes a fit receptacle, the Guru

arrives."

 

How does one become a fit receptable ? So is one's Guru the bestower of Grace ?

 

Thanks and Regards

Guruprasad

 

 

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Guruprasadji,

 

In Advaita, Ishwara and jiva are not considered to be in the realm of

maya both in the same way: Ishwara is the Lord of maya whereas the

jiva is bound my maya. Ishwara creates the universe from the freedom

of His Yogamaya and the entire universe is His body, whereas the jiva

is constrained by maya and remains identified with a limited part of

this creation.

 

When it is said that in maya, I am different, you are different, and

Ishwara is different, this is only from the perspective of the jiva

that sees the world through the veils of maya. Logically, from the

viewpoint of the Divine Eye of Ishwara, nothing is separate from Him.

 

You are right in pointing out that in the Brahma Sutra it is said

that the realised Atman has all powers except the power of Creation

which belongs to Ishwara alone. But this is true only as long as the

trace of separation exists, even if it be the burnt out ego of the

realised soul. When there is no trace of ego or identity left then

there really is no AND between the realised Atman and Ishwara --

there is then only Ishwara.

 

About Grace and Guru -- as far as my understanding goes, and here I

am certainly reaching the limits of my understanding, I would say

that one has to be sufficiently empty to become the receptacle of

Grace -- empty of desires, attachments, vanities, ambitions,

intrigues, falseness. It is said that the coming of the Guru is

already the beginning of the inflow of Grace. The coming of the Guru

is the readiness of the ego to dissolve; it is a sign of the

dissolving ego that it allows something from a level deeper than the

mind to rush up and recognize the Guru. In Vedanta, the Guru is

equated to Ishwara Himself, and in this respect He is the bestower of

Grace. If seen as a human, then the Guru is the channel of the Lord's

Grace.

 

With respect and regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

advaitin, Guru Venkat <v_vedanti> wrote:

> Dear Naikji,

>

> "In Advaita, Ishwara is Brahman in the aspect of Creator and

> Controller of the universe.

>

> The jiva is Brahman, but because the blemish is seen, the jiva is

not equal to Brahman. The world is true to the jiva, but what it

calls truth is mixed with the blemish of falsity, and hence

this "truth" is called vyavaharika satya. When there is no blemish of

falsity, the unadulterated Truth stands revealed. This is

paramarthika satya. "

>

> Brahman is only Nirgunam. Everyone is only this and finally reach

this 'state', if I may call it that. This I agree.

> Ishwara is treated as 'Saguna Brahman'. And he is in the realm of

Maya as much as the jivas are. In Maya, I am different , you are

different and so is Ishwara. Isn't it ?

> If we don't see the difference anymore we are standing apart from

Maya, aren't we ?

>

> even in the Brahma Sutra it is said that for a realized Atma, he

has the power of everything except the task of running the universe.

Now, why would this be said if Jiva is Ishwara ? Is this not

Ishwara's task ?

>

>

> "Grace is the very nature of Brahman. One has to become a fit

> receptacle to receive the grace. When one becomes a fit receptacle,

the Guru arrives."

>

> How does one become a fit receptable ? So is one's Guru the

bestower of Grace ?

>

> Thanks and Regards

> Guruprasad

>

>

>

>

> Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Guruprasadji,

>

> In Advaita, Ishwara and jiva are not considered to be in the realm

of

> maya both in the same way: Ishwara is the Lord of maya whereas the

> jiva is bound my maya. Ishwara creates the universe from the

freedom

> of His Yogamaya and the entire universe is His body, whereas the

jiva

> is constrained by maya and remains identified with a limited part

of

> this creation.

>

> When it is said that in maya, I am different, you are different,

and

> Ishwara is different, this is only from the perspective of the jiva

> that sees the world through the veils of maya. Logically, from the

> viewpoint of the Divine Eye of Ishwara, nothing is separate from

Him.

>

> You are right in pointing out that in the Brahma Sutra it is said

> that the realised Atman has all powers except the power of Creation

> which belongs to Ishwara alone. But this is true only as long as

the

> trace of separation exists, even if it be the burnt out ego of the

> realised soul. When there is no trace of ego or identity left then

> there really is no AND between the realised Atman and Ishwara --

> there is then only Ishwara.

>

> About Grace and Guru -- as far as my understanding goes, and here I

> am certainly reaching the limits of my understanding, I would say

> that one has to be sufficiently empty to become the receptacle of

> Grace -- empty of desires, attachments, vanities, ambitions,

> intrigues, falseness. It is said that the coming of the Guru is

> already the beginning of the inflow of Grace. The coming of the

Guru

> is the readiness of the ego to dissolve; it is a sign of the

> dissolving ego that it allows something from a level deeper than

the

> mind to rush up and recognize the Guru. In Vedanta, the Guru is

> equated to Ishwara Himself, and in this respect He is the bestower

of

> Grace. If seen as a human, then the Guru is the channel of the

Lord's

> Grace.

>

> With respect and regards,

> Chittaranjan

 

this is beautiful Chittaranjan,

even as a human, and i don't know how this grace was bestowed, all is

seen as His blissful grace.

eric

[Guest guest]

Namaste Naikji

 

Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

"In Advaita, Ishwara and jiva are not considered to be in the realm of maya both

in the same way: Ishwara is the Lord of maya whereas the jiva is bound my maya."

 

Agreed.

 

Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

"Ishwara creates the universe from the freedom of His Yogamaya and the entire

universe is His body, whereas the jiva

is constrained by maya and remains identified with a limited part of this

creation."

 

In my understanding, this is not Shankara's stand. It is only maya who is the

reason for creation. Since Maya also has Brahman as the ultimate reality, you

may say that Brahman is also the cause for creation. But this is only in the

indirect sense. If Ishwara is creating out of his will, then doesn't his

perfection become imperfect ? Because creation is only suffering for the Jiva.

Brahman seen through the veil of maya appears as Ishwara. The relationship

between Brahman and Maya is indecipherable.

 

Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

 

" You are right in pointing out that in the Brahma Sutra it is said that the

realised Atman has all powers except the power of Creation which belongs to

Ishwara alone. But this is true only as long as the trace of separation exists,

even if it be the burnt out ego of the realised soul. When there is no trace of

ego or identity left then there really is no AND between the realised Atman and

Ishwara -- there is then only Ishwara. "

 

My understanding on this:

 

Ishwara is endowned with all the attributes that are ever perfect. Jiva has an

'apparent' imperfection. He perceives the world because of this imperfection. I

am saying apparent because it is only due to Maya this imperfection appears. But

because of his imperfection he never becomes the perfect Ishwara. If this

imperfection is cleared, Jiva transcends Maya. Then Maya is not seen. If Maya is

not seen, where is Ishwara ? There is no more the Jiva or Ishwara or Maya. There

is only Brahman.

 

So, there is no Ishwara also, there is only Brahman upon realization.

 

A realized Atman is only Brahman. If he is Brahman , he does not see Maya

anymore. so where is the question of 'task of running the universe' , when the

the universe is He ?

 

Best Regards

 

Guruprasad

 

 

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Guru Venkat <v_vedanti> wrote:

 

snip

> A realized Atman is only Brahman. If he is Brahman , he does not

see Maya anymore. so where is the question of 'task of running the

universe' , when the the universe is He ?

>

> Best Regards

>

> Guruprasad

 

<sorry about the snip>

 

dear Guruprasad,

the question has been made tricky because of time and qualification;

first we have introduced categories, we have made all "entities" into

watertight compartments of their own; so the after-explanation of why

they are separate and how (and by which practice/grace) they should

be reunited, is a little funny.

it is like the linguists' work on ouralo-altaic languages who have

used Japanese to determine an hypothetic proto-language to all

languges of the region then, once the whole structure is in place,

wonder how Japanese language strays from its prototype :-)

regards,

eric

[Guest guest]

Namaste Guruprasadji

You had queried...

 

Snip

> >

> > Brahman is only Nirgunam. Everyone is only this and finally reach

> this 'state', if I may call it that. This I agree.

> > Ishwara is treated as 'Saguna Brahman'. And he is in the realm of

> Maya as much as the jivas are. In Maya, I am different , you are

> different and so is Ishwara. Isn't it ?

> > If we don't see the difference anymore we are standing apart from

> Maya, aren't we ?

> >

> > even in the Brahma Sutra it is said that for a realized Atma, he

> has the power of everything except the task of running the

universe.

> Now, why would this be said if Jiva is Ishwara ? Is this not

> Ishwara's task ?

> >

Snip

 

I had a similar question and shri Profvk presented a very interesting

( I could not find the original message reference and hence am

reproducing from my copy)

 

Start Profvk

 

Namaste Sridharji and all

 

Your questions will take us thro the entire advaita vedanta. One can

quote entire Upanishads. Instead of attempting to do anything of

that sort I just sat at the computer and typed off a reply just as

it came to my mind. Here it is.

 

Brahman is nirguNa, attributeless; is not the predicate of

anything, cannot be pointed at, is neither this nor that - and thus

it goes on.

 

So there is no way of `worshipping' it. No, we cannot even talk

about that except by giving it a name, though not a form. Therefore

Upanishads give it a name `tat', just for purposes of referring to

it and to say that `tat' has no attributes.

 

But our intellect wants to do something with the Almighty Supreme. A

worship, a prayer, a meditation, an offering or whatever. All these

involve a duality of the worshipper and the worshipped. The moment

we think of Brahman as an object of worship or prayer or meditation,

immediately, the concept of nirguna brahman is jeopardized. Thus

the intellect has created brahman with attributes - a saguna

brahman.

 

The very fact that our intellect has come in the picture implies

that mAyA has done its job. It is mAyA's effect that there is an

intellect and we begin to think of objects through our intellect.

Thus Brahman, with the upAdhi (impact, coating, influence,

superposition, covering, conditioning, ... - - choose your word)

of mAyA, is called saguNa brahman. You can go on debating now

whether we (through our intellect) created the saguna brahman or

whether it is somewhere there, if not an object, as a subject. That

question is neither relevant now, nor will it take us anywhere.

 

That saguNa brahman is the Ishvara. Now Ishvara has all the

superlative qualities that any religion associates with Almighty

God. But mAyA did not create Ishvara. It is Ishvara that created

the mAyA. MayA is in His control. It is like a snake having poison

but is never affected by its poison. Ishvara is not affected by His

mAyA.

 

On the other hand, the spark of brahman which is the core essence of

beings,(jIva-bhUtAM) is the creation of mAyA. So all jIvas are under

the influence of mAyA. To get out of this mAyA we need the Grace of

that Ishvara, who, by His magic wand, can take us out of the grip of

mAyA.

 

Thus Brahman and Ishvara are the same, except for the way we look at

them. If we don't look for brahman, but knowing we are brahman, if

we `are' brahman, then there is nothing more to say or do. `aham

brahma asmi'. Period.

 

On the other hand, if we want to look `at' brahman in some way or

other, already we have made brahman an object and thus it is already

only the saguna-brahman that we are talking about. So we can `look

at' it, we can meditate on it, we can aspire to `reach' it and all

that sort of thing.

 

Jiva on the other hand, so long as it is in the grip of mAyA, is

separate from brahman and also separate from other jIvas. Once it

transcends mAyA, it is brahman. This is the jIva-brahma aikyam that

advaita keeps trumpeting to us. When jIva identifies itself with

brahman there is no need to bring in an Ishvara now; because the

very identification of jIva with brahman already includes the

identification of brahman and Ishvara - because the identification

itself is something which transcends the mAyA. So the upAdhi of mAya

is gone from both jIva and Ishvara.

 

--------------

 

The above is a first version of my immediate thoughts on what you

wrote and what might answer you. I hope it doesn't need too many

corrections. My two cents worth.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

End Profvk

 

It helped me a lot. Hope this helps you too

Many Pranams to all advaitins

Sridhar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ericji

yes, at first pass it all sounds like a lot of play of words, until we begin to

think of explaining creation. There can be only one reality that is the driver

behind and only when we accept it in our intellect does Shankara begin to make

sense.

at least, that's what I think.

 

Regards

Guruprasad

 

 

eric paroissien <brahmanshines wrote:

,

the question has been made tricky because of time and qualification;

first we have introduced categories, we have made all "entities" into

watertight compartments of their own; so the after-explanation of why

they are separate and how (and by which practice/grace) they should

be reunited, is a little funny.

it is like the linguists' work on ouralo-altaic languages who have

used Japanese to determine an hypothetic proto-language to all

languges of the region then, once the whole structure is in place,

wonder how Japanese language strays from its prototype

 

 

 

Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes