Brahma Sutra and Ishvara

[Guest guest]

Namaskaram, some questions regarding the Brahma Sutra and its role in

the understanding of Ishvara. Please answer any (or point to

reference). Thank you.

 

Why is the Brahma Sutra considered as an essential scripture?

 

Was this identification as scripture begun by Shankara?

 

Is it correct to call it a sutra-commentary on the Upanishads? (i.e.

it does not stand on its own for originality, is a subsidiary to the

Upanishads, whose role (as accepted in sampradaya) is to give correct

interpretation of Up.)

 

Does the concept of Ishvara find its greatest support and precise

formulation in the Brahma Sutra? Can it stand in tact without this

scripture and solely on the Upanishads ? (I think Br. Up. hints at

Ishvara (any others); could Shankara's Bhashya on this alone have

provided the conviction in Ishvara, or is the Br. Su. Bhashya really

the essential source?)

 

Is Ishvara, as accepted in sampradayas, an assertion of the Vedas,

like Brahman, or is it primarily a logical postulate, following Brahma

Sutra, Bhagavad Gita, and the Acharyas' Bhashyas?

 

If there are varying interpretations of Ishvara among Advaitins, then

can it be said that it may depend on how they interpret/accept (or do

not) the Brahma Sutra, or how they choose to emphasize Shankara's

bhashya on this scripture? Is there room in Shankara's Bhashya to give

theistic and atheistic interpretations of Advaita?

 

Thankyou.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> Namaskaram, some questions regarding the Brahma Sutra and its role in

> the understanding of Ishvara. Please answer any (or point to

> reference). Thank you.

>

 

I checked the files just after sending and saw the Brahma Sutra notes.

If these questions are answered there, then I can find by reading

them. If anyone has further insight, let me know. Thanks.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Shree Putranm - PraNAms

 

Most of the questions you have raised are answered in

the notes on Brahmasuutras stored in advaitin

archives. You can down load them for your study. These

notes are based on Swami Paramarthanandaji talks in

Madras.

 

Hari Om

Sadananda

--- putranm <putranm wrote:

 

> Namaskaram, some questions regarding the Brahma

> Sutra and its role in

> the understanding of Ishvara. Please answer any (or

> point to

> reference). Thank you.

>

> Why is the Brahma Sutra considered as an essential

> scripture?

>

> Was this identification as scripture begun by

> Shankara?

>

> Is it correct to call it a sutra-commentary on the

> Upanishads? (i.e.

> it does not stand on its own for originality, is a

> subsidiary to the

> Upanishads, whose role (as accepted in sampradaya)

> is to give correct

> interpretation of Up.)

>

> Does the concept of Ishvara find its greatest

> support and precise

> formulation in the Brahma Sutra? Can it stand in

> tact without this

> scripture and solely on the Upanishads ? (I think

> Br. Up. hints at

> Ishvara (any others); could Shankara's Bhashya on

> this alone have

> provided the conviction in Ishvara, or is the Br.

> Su. Bhashya really

> the essential source?)

>

> Is Ishvara, as accepted in sampradayas, an assertion

> of the Vedas,

> like Brahman, or is it primarily a logical

> postulate, following Brahma

> Sutra, Bhagavad Gita, and the Acharyas' Bhashyas?

>

> If there are varying interpretations of Ishvara

> among Advaitins, then

> can it be said that it may depend on how they

> interpret/accept (or do

> not) the Brahma Sutra, or how they choose to

> emphasize Shankara's

> bhashya on this scripture? Is there room in

> Shankara's Bhashya to give

> theistic and atheistic interpretations of Advaita?

>

> Thankyou.

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sri Sadaji, thank you for the reference confirmation.

I will do some study of it (it is big!).

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

 

> Shree Putranm - PraNAms

>

> Most of the questions you have raised are answered

> in

> the notes on Brahmasuutras stored in advaitin

> archives. You can down load them for your study.

> These

> notes are based on Swami Paramarthanandaji talks in

> Madras.

>

> Hari Om

> Sadananda

> --- putranm <putranm wrote:

>

> > Namaskaram, some questions regarding the Brahma

> > Sutra and its role in

> > the understanding of Ishvara. Please answer any

> (or

> > point to

> > reference). Thank you.

> >

> > Why is the Brahma Sutra considered as an essential

> > scripture?

> >

> > Was this identification as scripture begun by

> > Shankara?

> >

> > Is it correct to call it a sutra-commentary on the

> > Upanishads? (i.e.

> > it does not stand on its own for originality, is a

> > subsidiary to the

> > Upanishads, whose role (as accepted in sampradaya)

> > is to give correct

> > interpretation of Up.)

> >

> > Does the concept of Ishvara find its greatest

> > support and precise

> > formulation in the Brahma Sutra? Can it stand in

> > tact without this

> > scripture and solely on the Upanishads ? (I think

> > Br. Up. hints at

> > Ishvara (any others); could Shankara's Bhashya on

> > this alone have

> > provided the conviction in Ishvara, or is the Br.

> > Su. Bhashya really

> > the essential source?)

> >

> > Is Ishvara, as accepted in sampradayas, an

> assertion

> > of the Vedas,

> > like Brahman, or is it primarily a logical

> > postulate, following Brahma

> > Sutra, Bhagavad Gita, and the Acharyas' Bhashyas?

> >

> > If there are varying interpretations of Ishvara

> > among Advaitins, then

> > can it be said that it may depend on how they

> > interpret/accept (or do

> > not) the Brahma Sutra, or how they choose to

> > emphasize Shankara's

> > bhashya on this scripture? Is there room in

> > Shankara's Bhashya to give

> > theistic and atheistic interpretations of Advaita?

> >

> > Thankyou.

> >

> > thollmelukaalkizhu

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

oneSearch: Finally, mobile search

that gives answers, not web links.

http://mobile./mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

[Guest guest]

namaskAraH,

 

On 06/08/07, putranm <putranm wrote:

>

> Why is the Brahma Sutra considered as an essential scripture?

 

It is the nyAya-prasthAna for vedAnta. A school of vedAnta is called

so if it has a bhAShya on the brahmasUtra-s. So it is more a matter of

definition, I guess.

 

>

> Was this identification as scripture begun by Shankara?

> Is it correct to call it a sutra-commentary on the Upanishads? (i.e.

> it does not stand on its own for originality, is a subsidiary to the

> Upanishads, whose role (as accepted in sampradaya) is to give correct

> interpretation of Up.)

 

It is an ancient polemical work that specifically aims to bring out

the Upanishadic view. Just as the objective of the mImAMsa sUtra-s was

to analyse & explain the veda (focusing mainly on the mantra-shAstra),

the objective of the brahmasUtra-s was to analyse & explain the

upaniShad-s.

Sankara's bhAShya is the oldest *extant* bhAShya on the brahmasUtra-s.

There might have been others earlier. Certainly the vedAntins were

identified as a saMpradAya long before Sankara.

 

>

> Does the concept of Ishvara find its greatest support and precise

> formulation in the Brahma Sutra? Can it stand in tact without this

> scripture and solely on the Upanishads ? (I think Br. Up. hints at

> Ishvara (any others); could Shankara's Bhashya on this alone have

> provided the conviction in Ishvara, or is the Br. Su. Bhashya really

> the essential source?)

 

I think it is futile to look for " precise formulations " . Apart from

the basic equation of Atman = brahman, I doubt if there are any

absolutely precise formulations in advaita-vedAnta. There are

frameworks to guide the seeker, and some of these frameworks are more

developed or more popular for various reasons, but it would be a

stretch to insist on " one correct method " or " one correct concept " . As

you have mentioned before, the two-truths system provides advaita with

a lot of flexibility.

 

The brahmasUtra-s have a detailed description of kramamukti, which

ties in with concepts of brahmaloka, ISvara-sR^iShTi, pralaya, and so

forth. Sankara in characteristic fashion comments in detail on these,

only to end it by saying that all of this is just to create vairAgya

in the seeker. I remember one of the scholars on the Advaita-l list

saying that the whole framework of sR^iShTi-dR^iShTi-vAda is only to

be used in debates with other schools, or for teaching beginners.

Other scholars may think differently.

 

>

> If there are varying interpretations of Ishvara among Advaitins, then

> can it be said that it may depend on how they interpret/accept (or do

> not) the Brahma Sutra, or how they choose to emphasize Shankara's

> bhashya on this scripture? Is there room in Shankara's Bhashya to give

> theistic and atheistic interpretations of Advaita?

 

I am not sure about the sUtra-bhAShya per se, but there can be many

" interpretations " of advaita which do not involve an Ishvara, at least

in the usual sense of an efficient but not material cause of the

universe. IMO, the situation is somewhat analogous to interpretations

of bhakti. What is normally called bhakti is simply devotion to a

personal deity, who is necessarily distinct from oneself. And yet,

many advaitins hold that at the highest level, jnAna and bhakti are

the same. Obviously, what an advaitin means by bhakti, at least at the

highest level, is different from what the typical bhakti saints mean.

For example, in the vivekacuDAmaNi, Sankara practically defines bhakti

as contemplation on the Atman. I doubt if mIrabAi would have agreed to

that, let alone madhvAcArya! In that sense, advaita can be as theistic

or as atheistic as you want it to be.

 

On Ishvara in particular, if you ask an advaitin AcArya on whether he

accepts Ishvara, the prima facie answer is likely to be yes. However,

if you dig deeper, the answer is far more nebulous. See for example,

this excerpt from an interview with SrI abhinava vidyAtIrtha, the late

AcArya of Sringeri (this is from a text file stored on my computer - I

dont recall where I got it from, probably from some old post on this

or the advaita-l list)

 

Quote (D: disciple, HH: SrI abhinava vidyAtIrtha)

--\

------

D: Then what is creation?

HH: Perception alone is creation. There is no other creation other

than the perception. The perception that a thing exists indeed is

creation and nothing else.

 

D: Then is it not a waste to consider that other living beings also exist?

HH: Yes.

 

D: Then what about Ishvara?

HH: He too is a part of your " dream " . In reality there is neither the

cause nor the effect. One has bondage as long as one considers that

one has bondage.

One who feels that one is free is indeed free. That is why it has been said:

muktAbhimAnI mukto hi baddho vaddhAbhimAnyapi |

That is one who considers oneself as a mukta is a mukta. One who feels

that he has bondage does have bondage. Therefore one should remove the

wrong impression that one has bondage.

 

D: Is the removal of the wrong idea that one has bondage itself a

quicker means of attaining moxa?

HH: Yes. So far I was speaking with dR^ishTi-sR^ishTi vAda in mind, but this

will not be suitable for many people because their minds will not be pure

enough to understand this philosophy. Everybody will accept that the dream

state alone is unreal. If it is said that the waking state is also unreal they

will be frightened. For some people it may appear that the dream state is

also real from the statement " The waking state is akin to the dream state " .

That is why the sAstra-s do not speak much of the dR^ishTi-sR^ishTi vAda.

Seldom do they speak about it.

----------

End quote

 

In the dR^ishTi-sR^ishTi vAda, even ISvara is only a pratibhAsika

satya. SrI madhusUdana sarasvati in his siddhAntabindu says that

dR^ishTi-sR^ishTi vAda is the " mukhya vedAnta siddhAnta " , though he is

known to have been a Krishna bhakta.

 

As far as the vedic saMhitA-s go, the classic view seems to be one of

recognizing the divinity of all phenomena. This might fit in with

several philosophical schools, and definitely fits in with advaita. In

the R^ig veda 3rd maNDala, there is a statement that roughly

translates as " indra through his mAyA appears in many forms " . The

noteworthy point here is that indra does not use his power of mAyA to

create diverse forms, but that indra himself appears in diverse forms

through his own mAyA. In general, mAyA is that power by which the

deva-s appear to be that which they are not.

 

There is another similar statement in the Br.Up, which gauDapAda

quotes in the advaita prakaraNa of his kArikA-s. Therefore, the

concept of Ishvara as the efficient but not the material cause of the

world is, IMO, not a popular one in the veda.

 

dhanyavAdaH

Ramesh

 

Ramesh

 

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

--- Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote:

> I think it is futile to look for " precise

> formulations " . Apart from

> the basic equation of Atman = brahman, I doubt if

> there are any

> absolutely precise formulations in advaita-vedAnta.

> There are

> frameworks to guide the seeker, and some of these

> frameworks are more

> developed or more popular for various reasons, but

> it would be a

> stretch to insist on " one correct method " or " one

> correct concept " . As

> you have mentioned before, the two-truths system

> provides advaita with

> a lot of flexibility.

 

Namaskarams Sri Ramesh, Thank you for the candid

response. This seems the natural conclusion as the

focus is ultimately the paramaarthika truth. As you

indicated, the (intended) usage of the

drishti-shrishti-vada may also have its variations

among scholars. One must decide on the path and follow

it.

 

When the acharya says Ishvara is part of dream, he is

clear that so are other jivas and jagat: all duality

is mithya for Brahman alone is satya. Perception

includes the sense of individual self as a precursor,

followed by world and resolved in God. It is not

necessary that the acharya rejects Ishvara in any

sense greater than that of jiva and jagat; it may be

" perception " in the all-inclusive sense. From the

jiva-jagat standpoint (which the complaining " dreamer "

inexplicably takes as starting point), how does

Ishvara correspond? A paramaarthika position sublates

the whole question as ultimately meaningless, but not

necessarily as inconclusive in its own relative

validity.

 

Or so the argument can proceed. Then we must pick the

side according to our predelictions, understanding, or

faith in sampradayas. Anycase, your explanations are

most reasonable.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

> Quote (D: disciple, HH: SrI abhinava vidyAtIrtha)

>

--\

------

> D: Then what is creation?

> HH: Perception alone is creation. There is no other

> creation other

> than the perception. The perception that a thing

> exists indeed is

> creation and nothing else.

>

> D: Then is it not a waste to consider that other

> living beings also exist?

> HH: Yes.

>

> D: Then what about Ishvara?

> HH: He too is a part of your " dream " . In reality

> there is neither the

> cause nor the effect. One has bondage as long as one

> considers that

> one has bondage.

> One who feels that one is free is indeed free. That

> is why it has been said:

> muktAbhimAnI mukto hi baddho

> vaddhAbhimAnyapi |

> That is one who considers oneself as a mukta is a

> mukta. One who feels

> that he has bondage does have bondage. Therefore one

> should remove the

> wrong impression that one has bondage.

>

> D: Is the removal of the wrong idea that one has

> bondage itself a

> quicker means of attaining moxa?

> HH: Yes. So far I was speaking with

> dR^ishTi-sR^ishTi vAda in mind, but this

> will not be suitable for many people because their

> minds will not be pure

> enough to understand this philosophy. Everybody will

> accept that the dream

> state alone is unreal. If it is said that the waking

> state is also unreal they

> will be frightened. For some people it may appear

> that the dream state is

> also real from the statement " The waking state is

> akin to the dream state " .

> That is why the sAstra-s do not speak much of the

> dR^ishTi-sR^ishTi vAda.

> Seldom do they speak about it.

>

----------

> End quote

>

> In the dR^ishTi-sR^ishTi vAda, even ISvara is only a

> pratibhAsika

> satya. SrI madhusUdana sarasvati in his

> siddhAntabindu says that

> dR^ishTi-sR^ishTi vAda is the " mukhya vedAnta

> siddhAnta " , though he is

> known to have been a Krishna bhakta.

>

> As far as the vedic saMhitA-s go, the classic view

> seems to be one of

> recognizing the divinity of all phenomena. This

> might fit in with

> several philosophical schools, and definitely fits

> in with advaita. In

> the R^ig veda 3rd maNDala, there is a statement that

> roughly

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with

FareChase.

http://farechase./

[Guest guest]

On 07/08/07, Putran Maheshwar <putranm wrote:

>

> When the acharya says Ishvara is part of dream, he is

> clear that so are other jivas and jagat: all duality

> is mithya for Brahman alone is satya. Perception

> includes the sense of individual self as a precursor,

> followed by world and resolved in God. It is not

> necessary that the acharya rejects Ishvara in any

> sense greater than that of jiva and jagat; it may be

> " perception " in the all-inclusive sense. From the

> jiva-jagat standpoint (which the complaining " dreamer "

> inexplicably takes as starting point), how does

> Ishvara correspond? A paramaarthika position sublates

> the whole question as ultimately meaningless, but not

> necessarily as inconclusive in its own relative

> validity.

 

The issue of Ishvara at the phenomenal level arises only when the

question is asked in the first place. The AcArya says that Ishvara too

is a part of your dream just because the questioner asks for the

status of Ishvara. And the questioner typically asks it because he

assumes it. Why complicate the matter even more by discussing how does

Ishvara correspond from the jIva-jagat standpoint? For example, what

is the point in saying that dreams are a part of your dream? One would

then have to divide even the pratibhAsika level into two!

 

Also, the answer is given because the method of adhyAropa-apavAda and

the two-truths do not render such an answer infeasible.The basic point

being that once we assume the validity of causality, there can be as

many theories of causality/creation as we want.

 

Nowadays many of us study advaita-vedAnta almost purely as a

philosophical system. However, the fact is that it is an inalienable

part of a larger cultural/philosophical tradition, what we call

Hinduism. The traditional AcArya-s learn all the darSana-s, the vedic

& tAntric mantra shaastra, temple traditions, and much more. All of

these offer rich perspectives on the nature of the universe. For

example, in the vaiSeShika view, all phenomena are due to combination

of aNu-s and paramANu-s (which may be broadly translated as molecules

and atoms, respectively) and their interaction through basic physical

forces. No Ishvara in the sense of an efficient cause is postulated. I

dont see how the basic vaiSeShika view is in any way opposed to

advaita at the vyAvahArika level. Indeed I am told the Sringeri

AcArya-s study vaiSeShika also.

 

IMO, the basic reason why a lot of people are hung up on Ishvara as an

omniscient, omnipresent creator is the fact that our modern day

language & terminology are substantially influenced by the worldview

of the semitic religions. We use the term " God " all the time and

unconsciously use it the way the semitic religions use it. I am not

suggesting that such a conception is totally absent in our tradition,

but it is simply one of several ways of looking at the issue of

creation/causality, and if I might add, very much a minority view in

the Hindu tradition.

 

Even if one postulates an efficient cause, it need not be a single

Ishvara. The second shloka of the saundaryalaharI, traditionally

attributed to Sankara, refers to brahmA building the universe from the

dust at the feet of the devI tripurasundarI, viShNu sustaining it, and

Siva finally destroying it and smearing the dust on himself as ash. I

am not sure what philosophical/esoteric interpretations may be drawn

from this as I have not studied any of the commentaries on the

saundaryalaharI, but it is obvious that there are many ways of

explaining causality.

 

dhanyavAdaH

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Sri Dhyanasaraswathi-ji, thankyou for your post. Read

it; that basic initial acceptance can go a long way. I

actually experienced this, but then ... things got

messy, and now am trying to etch out the path anew.

 

--- Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote:

 

 

> The issue of Ishvara at the phenomenal level arises

> only when the

> question is asked in the first place.

 

Sri Ramesh,

 

Yes. The questioner is asking, so has admitted

causality and his own identity as jiva. If the

questioner also admits intellectually what has been

admitted in fact, and hence enquires regarding this,

then the assertion is that Ishvara is the Cause. For

the questioner, cause/karma and effect appear as

realities and the scripture specifically directs the

questioner to resolve these in Ishvara.

 

 

The AcArya

> says that Ishvara too

> is a part of your dream just because the questioner

> asks for the

> status of Ishvara.

 

Yes, but the dream includes the belief in jivahood.

And yes, because the questioner, whose standpoint is

of jiva, is actually asking. " Where no questions are

asked, no answers need be given. "

 

 

And the questioner typically asks

> it because he

> assumes it. Why complicate the matter even more by

> discussing how does

> Ishvara correspond from the jIva-jagat standpoint?

> For example, what

> is the point in saying that dreams are a part of

> your dream? One would

> then have to divide even the pratibhAsika level into

> two!

 

The questioner asks because the scriptures assert

Ishvara in place (or as final fulfillment) of the

karma-mimamsakas version or the scientist version, and

other causality theories.

 

The questioner is within the dream and the asking is

within it. The dream is the state of accepted reality,

and in that dream, Sri Ramesh, the computer and the

sun are distinctly identifiable and identified. From

the jiva standpoint, fire is accepted as hot even if

the hand is not touching it, and a picture of Mt.

Everest denotes that the mountain exists even if never

seen in person. The mind admits several orders of

(dream) realities based on the faith in the medium of

information.

 

In that dream, the horse with the horn is a dream

unreality and the horse without the horn is a dream

reality. The questioner can be directed to the fact

that both are part of dream as also the questioner, in

order to create vairagya and pave the path to jnana;

but as we are dealing with the questioner in the first

place, there is also place to clearly differentiate

the two versions of horses. From the standpoint of

name and form, the horse without horn is real and the

one with horn is unreal: this may be affirmed

independent of whether the questioner has seen a

horse.

 

(I understand your point, but it is not clear if that

is the intended manner of interpreting

drishti-shrishti-vada. Whether people thought earth

was flat or round, it is round in the $intended$

framework of analysis. )

 

So in the case of Ishvara, the medium of information

is the scripture, and the context of analysis is

within the dream-world that includes the questioner.

In that dream, does the scripture affirm Ishvara as

dream-reality or dream-unreality? It corresponds

directly to the questioner. From the context of

jiva-jagat, Ishvara may be real.

 

>

> Also, the answer is given because the method of

> adhyAropa-apavAda and

> the two-truths do not render such an answer

> infeasible.The basic point

> being that once we assume the validity of causality,

> there can be as

> many theories of causality/creation as we want.

 

Don't follow first sentence. For second, I said above

that while vyavahaarika may allow for several

versions, there is possibility that a resolution in

Ishvara is asserted as final truth from jiva-jagat

standpoint, that Ishvara as some " Power " , etc is real

third aspect.

May be only eulogy or for vairagya; depends on how

things are emphasized.

 

>

> Nowadays many of us study advaita-vedAnta almost

> purely as a

> philosophical system. However, the fact is that it

> is an inalienable

> part of a larger cultural/philosophical tradition,

> what we call

> Hinduism. The traditional AcArya-s learn all the

> darSana-s, the vedic

> & tAntric mantra shaastra, temple traditions, and

> much more. All of

> these offer rich perspectives on the nature of the

> universe. For

> example, in the vaiSeShika view, all phenomena are

> due to combination

> of aNu-s and paramANu-s (which may be broadly

> translated as molecules

> and atoms, respectively) and their interaction

> through basic physical

> forces. No Ishvara in the sense of an efficient

> cause is postulated.

 

I had raised this question before: whether Ishvara is

a logical postulation or a scriptural assertion of the

Vedas. When we speak of it as postulated, then the

argument falls apart; in that sense, Brahman is also a

postulation - our acceptance is based on scripture

ultimately, as a prelude to acceptance of the

spiritual path. Logic is meant to aid and not to

prove. So the question amounts to how Ishvara is

accepted in the Shankara sampradaya (s).

 

 

> IMO, the basic reason why a lot of people are hung

> up on Ishvara as an

> omniscient, omnipresent creator is the fact that our

> modern day

> language & terminology are substantially influenced

> by the worldview

> of the semitic religions. We use the term " God " all

> the time and

> unconsciously use it the way the semitic religions

> use it.

 

It is convinient to use this version; so we use it.

But whether Ishvara is a mere verbal replacement for

karma-karmaphala or nature, or has some parallel to

our sense of consciousness in the relative existence,

is open. And the question is : how are the Shankara

sampradaya (s) interpreting?

 

As you said, it may have many versions: whether the

kanchi acharya is really debating with the sringeri

acharya is open for debate. Ideally they both see

things as the same with reference to Shankara bhashya,

and it appears different due to their choice of

emphasis.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.

http://searchmarketing./

[Guest guest]

Pranams Ramesh-ji,

 

I would just like to add a small, perhaps obvious, point.

When we say that the equation atman = brahman is the only absolutely

precise formulation, perhaps it is useful to remember that this

equation (like all equations) is talking about two seemingly

dissimilar entities. Like mass and energy.

 

It makes no sense at all to say Brahman = Brahman.

What Vedanta refers to as atman is the jivatman alone.

 

No sooner does the term jivatman come into the picture, then that very

instance the term Paramatman or ParaBrahman is immediately relevant -

the equation points to the truth or essence of these seemingly

opposing entities being nondifferent i.e. the jivatma has no reality

separate from the Paramatma.

 

So inherent in the very fact that Vedanta talks about a equation is a

construct or an Order that involves the jiva,the jagat,and Ishwara.

This Order needs to be accounted for in any analysis of the Scripture.

 

These immortal words in the Kaivalopanishad are crystal clear

 

" (Who is) unthinkable, unmanifest, of endless forms, the good, the

peaceful, Immortal, the origin of the worlds, without beginning,

middle, and end, the only one, all-pervading, Consciousness, and

Bliss, the formless and the wonderful. Meditating on the highest Lord,

allied to Uma, powerful, three-eyed, blue-necked, and tranquil, the

holy man reaches Him who is the source of all, the witness of all and

is beyond darkness (i.e. Avidya). He is Brahma, He is Shiva, He is

Indra, He is the Immutable, the Supreme, the Self-luminous, He alone

is Vishnu, He is Prana, He is Time and Fire, He is the Moon. He alone

is all that was, and all that will be, the Eternal; knowing Him, one

transcends death; there is no other way to freedom. "

 

and further

 

" Thus realising the Paramatman, who lies in the cavity of the heart,

who is without parts, and without a second, the Witness of all, beyond

both existence and non-existence – one attains the Pure Paramatman

Itself. "

 

The Bhagawad Gita exhaustively, and categorically, talks about Ishwara

or Paramatman - terminologies and vocabulary may be different in

different chapters, but the message is both uniform and unambiguous.

 

I would also like to point out that the term Ishwara does not really

refer to one particular " God " such as Shiva or Vishnu or Devi but to

the Omniscient Omnipotent, Nondual One, as in " vistabhyaham idam

krtsnam ekamsena sthito jagat " " With a single fragment of Myself I

pervade and support this entire universe. "

- so perhaps when you say there could be " many " Ishwaras, your

concept of what this term encompasses is perhaps different from this?

 

My response to Putran-ji would be that in no scripture in Hinduism

whether it be the Upanishads, the Bhagawad Gita or the BrahmaSutras

will you find a circumvention of Ishwara - He is innate and implicit

in each of the Shrutivakyas.

 

Humble pranams,

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyo namah

Shyam

 

 

advaitin , " Ramesh Krishnamurthy " <rkmurthy

wrote:

>

> namaskAraH,

>

> > Does the concept of Ishvara find its greatest support and precise

> > formulation in the Brahma Sutra? Can it stand in tact without this

> > scripture and solely on the Upanishads ?

> I think it is futile to look for " precise formulations " . Apart from

> the basic equation of Atman = brahman, I doubt if there are any

> absolutely precise formulations in advaita-vedAnta.

[Guest guest]

--- shyam_md <shyam_md wrote:

 

 

> " (Who is) unthinkable, unmanifest, of endless forms,

> the good, the

> peaceful, Immortal, the origin of the worlds,

> without beginning,

> middle, and end, the only one, all-pervading,

> Consciousness, and

> Bliss, the formless and the wonderful. Meditating on

> the highest Lord,

> allied to Uma, powerful, three-eyed, blue-necked,

> and tranquil, the

> holy man reaches Him who is the source of all, the

> witness of all and

> is beyond darkness (i.e. Avidya). He is Brahma, He

> is Shiva, He is

> Indra, He is the Immutable, the Supreme, the

> Self-luminous, He alone

> is Vishnu, He is Prana, He is Time and Fire, He is

> the Moon. He alone

> is all that was, and all that will be, the Eternal;

> knowing Him, one

> transcends death; there is no other way to freedom. "

>

 

Sri Shyamji, can you answer this specific question I

raised a couple of days back? Please refer to my

response from Saturday to Sri Sastriji's " My website "

post.

 

Are we superimposing individuality (deifying) to the

action-reaction universe and saying " He wills, He is

everywhere " etc., or do these assertions indicate

regarding Ishvara some Person/Mind aspect?

 

I know you have answered in detail before; but just

mention how exactly to interpret " He " , " Him " , etc.

which we use for jiva with respect to individual

consciousness and sense of identity, and not for

" jada " entities in jagat. The kanchi acharya's words

(in the advaita_sadana file) give very much a person

sense (or some Power of independent status) for

Ishvara who is distinct and who gives the fruits of

actions, etc.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Luggage? GPS? Comic books?

Check out fitting gifts for grads at Search

http://search./search?fr=oni_on_mail & p=graduation+gifts & cs=bz

[Guest guest]

> IMO, the basic reason why a lot of people are hung

> up on Ishvara as an

> omniscient, omnipresent creator is the fact that our

> modern day

> language & terminology are substantially influenced

> by the worldview

> of the semitic religions. We use the term " God " all

> the time and

> unconsciously use it the way the semitic religions

> use it. I am not

> suggesting that such a conception is totally absent

> in our tradition,

> but it is simply one of several ways of looking at

> the issue of

> creation/causality, and if I might add, very much a

> minority view in

> the Hindu tradition.

>

 

Sri Rameshji,

 

These points of yours are good; I rushed over them

quickly in order to get to the end. The terminology

often varies, depending on when and in what context

the person speaks of Ishvara. I am not aiming at

establishing a dvaitic or semitic interpretation in

vyavahaarika; but only at figuring out exactly how the

shankara sampradaya interprets. My feeling is that

Ishvara in vyavahaarika is somewhere in between the

two extremes; but the search for consensus as to what

must continue. Thanks for your attempts to clarify.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with

FareChase.

http://farechase./

[Guest guest]

The terminology often varies, depending on when and in what context the

person speaks of Ishvara. I am not aiming at establishing a dvaitic or

semitic interpretation in vyavahaarika; but only at figuring out exactly

how the shankara sampradaya interprets. My feeling is that Ishvara in

vyavahaarika is somewhere in between the two extremes; but the search for

consensus as to what must continue.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Since we are talking about *shankara saMpradAya* with regard to concept of

Ishwara, I am tempted to share my view points.sorry to butt-in..According

to shankara bhagavadpAda, the concept of Ishwara & his *ishitavya* holds

good only in vyavahAra..From the pAramArthika view point, there is no

Lordship/hood in absolute non-dual brahman. If we accept *Ishvaratva* in

absolute sense, then it leads to duality i.e. distinction between ruler &

the ruled. But in vyavahAra, we do accept the existence of omnipotent,

omniscient Lord who is karmAdhyaksha & karmaphaladAta.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar