nir... ( a Brahma sutra quote): Why/how Ishvara?

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> > > Why is " imagined " used as an adjective? The cause can be imagined

> > > only if the effect is imagined. The effect affirmed in mind is

> world,

> > > and the cause inferred as corresponding to world is Ishvara, the

> > > Creator. The commentary says this Ishvara is " imagined " .

> The issue is that in this sutra causality is attributed to Brahman:

> it is the origin of this (world). Brahman is Reality; no imagination.

> Brahman seen with the linkage of causality is precisely Ishvara, as I

> understand. So the word IMAGINE brings to light two points:

>

> 1. First, Advaita seeks to undermine the attribution of causality to

> Brahman. That is why the effect is referred to as unreal or 'apparent

> modification'; hence the causal view of Brahman, i.e. Ishvara, is

> undermined, by stating it as imagined.

>

> Of course, exactly how this undermining is to be interpreted in

> Advaita is important; and this recently was discussed quite a bit.

>

> 2. Second, and perhaps more to my point, even if the effects are

> affirmed at the sensual vyavahaarika level, and hence Brahman is

> affirmed as the Reality of what we see, still the causal

> objectification of Brahman as Ishvara: the personal or sentient God,

> is purely IMAGINation of the jiva.

>

 

Namaskaram,

 

Regarding the questions I raised, some thoughts came after reading

about 3/4 of Sri Sadanandaji's essay (post 35718) on Advaita. I cannot

say if the interpretation below is correct, but it serves to give a

logic support for why Ishvara is not " imagined " , if properly interpreted.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

____________________

 

First observe that we do any objective analysis starting with belief

in the sentience/insentience duality. Hence the advaitic assertion

that jagat is chaitanya/Atma in truth is incomprehensible. Why?

Because Chaitanya for the jiva involves the capacity to act of one's

self: self-willing or mental deliberation, whereas jagat (seems to)

lacks such capacity. (We can conceptualize consciousness in jagat but

this is a mental superimposition which the jiva cannot fully accept).

So the scriptural assertion of jagat being (or a superimposition on)

chaitanya vastu (Brahman) is beyond ordinary comprehension.

 

The problem is that jagat is identified only by jiva, which in

Advaita (I think) is a set of limiting adjuncts through which the Self

realizes itself as knower and known. Therefore if we wish to relate to

Brahman as the chaitanya cause of jagat, we are in trouble for the

jagat-identification by jiva comes implicit with equating the

identified as A-chaitanya (not conscious).

 

POINT: If we mentally accept the jiva-jagat duality and try to

objectively trace back to the Cause (or Reality of them) in Brahman,

and if we wish to follow the scripture and assert that this Cause is

Chaitanya, then the Chaitanya affirmation must be one of a

self-willing Ishvara, parallel to the jiva's preconceived notion of

Chaitanya. Hence the existence of Ishvara is equivalent in the jiva's

imagination to the existence of a separate mind-operating Reality.

This is the Dvaitic version of God, which either one accepts or rejects.

 

 

A better approach to Ishvara in Advaita is not to begin with the

jiva-jagat and then attempt an objective causal reference to Brahman.

Rather, surrender the walls of jivahood through which the jagat

appears. The 'i' of the body in world is realized then as being the

'I' of Existence/Reality. (atman=Brahman). The jiva's mind becomes a

window through which this I projects forth the individual and the

manifold.

 

When one seeks Unity through the jagat, as perhaps in other

schools of thought, the possible conclusions will be : 1. Reality is

A-Chaitanya 2. Reality is (ocean of) Consciousness without a locus, or

3. God + world. In Advaita, the objective unification serves a

conceptual purpose in the spiritual path when one is unable to

surrender belief in jiva-ness. However this does not indicate the

Reality of Self/Brahman. What will lead to the Truth of Brahman is the

subjective unification, in the realization of atma as the One

Everpresent Existent Self, indicated by 'I' (-> Ishvara). As we trace

unity through our essential Self, the chaitanya status of Ishvara

becomes natural to realize as only Reality. The objective projection

of multiplicity is causally sublated in the Reality of 'I' - the

eternal Ishvara - the Lord who wills to become many and projects forth

this manifold universe through the power of Maya.

 

 

_________________

" How can the Knower be known? " For You are that Knower, who in the

context of a certain mind have presumed reality in the ego and are

seeing a world of duality in relation to that mind.

Like the eye cannot see itself except in a mirror, so also that

infinite Reality realizes itSelf in the mirrors of individual

consciousness. And in individual consciousness, this Brahman appears

as the dual-pair of knower and known, neither of which can be pinned

down in a definite manner (for they ultimately point to non-dual Brahman).

--