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

[Guest guest]

Namaskaram,

 

One final point on this, if for nothing else, for the sake of argument

in favour of Ishvara's Individuality. I already suggested this in the

previous " Nir.... Why/how Ishvara? " post. Please think on whether this

is reasonable.

 

The jiva believes in the reality of jagat. So it starts with a belief

in A-chaitanya. Scripture says Brahman is Chaitanya vastu. So the

jiva's belief in A-chaitanya is concluded as imagination.

 

If the jiva tries to understand Brahman as cause/truth of jagat and

substratum of it, it will end up one way or other superimposing the

perceived qualities of jagat onto Ishvara. An abstract version of

Ishvara being synonymous with Brahman, or entirely impersonal, will be

concluded in order to accomodate the jiva-jagat duality in a non-dual

frame. The entire scriptural purpose for emphasizing Ishvara will be

brushed aside. This analysis is done in the wrong direction.

 

Instead go within and realize that your 'i' is a projection of the 'I'

of Brahman. Then the chaitanya status of Ishvara is at once clear, and

the world indeed is realized as His/Your own projection. His

Individuality then is realized as the Cause of your individuality and

perception of manifold -- one not more unreal than the other. And

Brahman becomes the true non-dual substratum (I) of the " I am-i

am-That is " triple of vyavahara.

 

POINT: The approach matters. The atma is the most immediate chaitanya

vastu for the jiva; the seen is to be subsumed in the Seer and not the

other way around. This approach will lead to the conclusions as

perhaps intended in the scriptures.

 

I think this is something to consider.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

> advaitin , " pjoshi99 " <pjoshi99@> wrote:

>

> Dear Padma-ji,

>

> Namste,

>

> If we accept, that, brahman and ishwara are one and the same, then, In

> Sarikara's Advaita, Brahman the Absolute is not very responsive to

> human emotions or prayers. The Isvara we bank on is either unreal or

> has a precarious existence.

>

> By the grace of Sri Ramakrishna, all my doubts on pertaining to this

> issue have been dispelled. But, I am trying to understand, sincerely,

> the definition of ishwara, his nature and his reality in the shankara

> sampradya.

>

> Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

>

> Br. Vinayaka.

>

>

>

>

> Brahman and Ishwara is one and the same. When Brahman

> > is looked at as " cause " due to imagined " effect " it is called Ishwara

> > but what is talked about is one and the same.

> >

> > This is just my understanding. Please do correct me as needed.

> >

> > Love and Respect

> > Padma

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Putranji,

 

" If the jiva tries to understand Brahman as cause/truth of jagat and

substratum of it, it will end up one way or other superimposing the

perceived qualities of jagat onto Ishvara. An abstract version of

Ishvara being synonymous with Brahman, or entirely impersonal, will be

concluded in order to accomodate the jiva-jagat duality in a non-dual

frame. The entire scriptural purpose for emphasizing Ishvara will be

brushed aside. "

 

I think we have to understand that Ishvara is " being emphasized " for

two different reasons in the scriptures.

 

One is that Ishvara is the object of upasana/bhakti and through

upasana one attains antahkarana-shuddhi. An understanding of Ishvara

is also essential karma yoga and that is another reason why an

understanding of Ishvara is important for antahkarana-shuddhi. Neither

of these imply a " personal " Ishvara, either.

 

The other reason, which I think you are overlooking, is that Ishvara

as jagat-karana is taught as part of the karana-karya prakriya which

is a way of revealing the nature of the Self. The method employed in

the sixth chapter of the Chhandogya Upanishad, which involves the

repeated affirmation " tat tvam asi " is none other than this prakriya.

We always begin with the assumption of three distinct principles, the

individual, the world and the Lord. The way we understand that the

Lord is non-dual, not even cause, is extremely intertwined with why

the Lord is the cause. So it is not that the Lord is the cause as some

kind of concession for the weak, but understanding in what way the

Lord is the cause is absolutely essential if we want to understand why

the Lord is not the cause. The whole point of Vedanta is that there is

a process by which, based on our current experience, the paramarthika

perspective is established.

 

" The atma is the most immediate chaitanya

vastu for the jiva; the seen is to be subsumed in the Seer and not the

other way around. "

 

There are different prakriyas. In the karana-karya prakriya, the basic

idea is:

 

1) There is a single jagat-karana (esp. intended in the sense of

material cause)

2) Since the world is nothing but this jagat-karana, the world is

unreal (ie: vacarambhanam vikaro nama-dheyam), so Ishvara/Brahman is

not really jagat-karana

3) That Brahman, which alone exists, that I am.

 

In avastha traya prakriya (just to give another example), the process

is somewhat different:

1) I am present in the waking, dream and deep sleep states

2) Thus, nothing exclusive to any one of these states is my essential

nature and I am the witness, which is common to all these states.

3) That witness is awareness, which is always free of these states,

and that I am..

 

So there is no one process, but the Upanishads reveal a number of

different ways of teaching the nature of the Self. They are all based

on our current experience and perspective and step-by-step establish

the nature of the Self. This teaching methodology is also not meant to

work on the basis of inferential logic in that each step doesn't

neccesarily imply the next (obviously). But the idea is that when it

is taught like this, based our own experience, we can see the truth of

each step with respect to our own experience, and then be lead,

through such contemplation, to the recognition of the nature of the

Self.

 

Please feel free to correct my mistakes and omissions and thank you

for bringing up this topic.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane

wrote:

>

> Dear Putranji,

>

> I think we have to understand that Ishvara is " being emphasized "

for

> two different reasons in the scriptures.

>

> One is that Ishvara is the object of upasana/bhakti and through

> upasana one attains antahkarana-shuddhi. An understanding of

Ishvara

> is also essential karma yoga and that is another reason why an

> understanding of Ishvara is important for antahkarana-shuddhi.

Neither

> of these imply a " personal " Ishvara, either.

>

 

So: Ishvara is viewed as " our putting-into-context " ; He is not really

there except as a tool for our spiritual path.

 

 

> We always begin with the assumption of three distinct principles,

the

> individual, the world and the Lord.

 

Rishiji, we begin with the assumption of 2 principles: jiva and

jagat, and by reasoning conclude there must be a third called

Ishvara. The first two are very very very very apparent to the

senses or intuition, and real at their level. The question is

whether the third is " equally REAL " though apparently beyond the

senses. It is ok to say that we can get beyond the " Lord is Cause "

level by a process; that also gets us beyond the " world is effect " .

FINE> BUT when we are at the " world is effect " level, and Rishiji is

real to Putranji, is Ishvara the Lord equally real? The question is

not to evade this possibility and get to Paramaarthika. The question

is whether (as your first para suggests) Ishvara is merely the jiva's

self-deluding tool for realizing the non-dual substratum, or whether

He is ever-aware, LOCUS OF ALL IDENTITY ... HIS MIND AWARE OF OUR

MINDS and so on. Is He the Chaitanya-Reality conscious in an all-

encompassing sense and His Grace capable of breaking the bonds of

karma....

 

>

> 1) There is a single jagat-karana (esp. intended in the sense of

> material cause)

> 2) Since the world is nothing but this jagat-karana, the world is

> unreal (ie: vacarambhanam vikaro nama-dheyam), so Ishvara/Brahman

is

> not really jagat-karana

> 3) That Brahman, which alone exists, that I am.

>

 

World is unreal, in the sense that the " pot " is ultimately only clay,

or the " wave " is only water. The Reality is Brahman. Ishvara is the

one who projects this apparent duality by the power of Maya. But can

the effect really be separated from the cause? No. It is one with it;

the idea of something new having come is illusion. But from the

illusion's standpoint, the question remains whether Ishvara is

included as a dream-reality or imagined as a " barren woman's son " ?

 

You are presenting only the subjective standpoint of the jiva and

avoiding any tendency to objectify the experience into a Locus as

real as the jiva believes itself to be. Ishvara, as per the jiva, is

the LOCUS of IDENTITY of Existence. The terminology of Brahman seems

to avoid this point by making out a non-dual " substratum " -- one

might as well adopt the " Ocean of consciousness " -- it is almost

meaningless. Reality is IDENTITY the I-I -- and for the jiva, that is

Ishvara the sole Individual.

 

(I state these things as if they are facts I know of. Just take them

as arguments of the " Ishvara is real " side. I lack much knowledge of

scripture, so resort to logic and opinion.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu