Locus of ignorance? (Ishvara topic)

[Guest guest]

Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns wrote: --- In

advaitin , Putran Maheshwar <putranm wrote:

 

>

Dear Putran-ji,

 

I have gone through your post carefully. I resist from replying since

I feel that I have already answered those issues in my last post and

that is my stand as far as my present understanding of the

shruti/AchArya bhashya goes. I request other members of the forum to

correct/improve upon it in accordance with shruti and and bhAshya

with a special focus on the relative plane of existence.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

 

 

 

 

 

_,_._,___

 

Sri Vinayakaji, my objections may amount to language. There is a preponderance

of individual-based language in the manner the Advaitin addresses Ishvara, and

it is not clear to me to what extent that individuality is ultimately sublated.

This includes your post and your quotes. In fact, when Sri Shastriji mentioned

of his webpage, at once I raised this objection regarding his list of

quotations.

 

For instance, " God does not undergo suffering... because He has no

identification with body " . Unless we affirm in God individuality - a sense of i

- the question of suffering is irrelevant, and the unnecessary tautology of His

non-identification with body is misleading. It suggests perfection in an aspect

that does not apply to " God " , for God in Advaita is non-individual 'Totality' or

the 'very universe'. We DO NOT affirm Ishvara as a Being whose mind is ever

aware of Truth, as we would of the jiva who transcends body-identification. The

question of mind/locus of identity is not applicable to Ishvara.

 

(Slight change from last post; my understanding) The jiva perceives the world of

maya as composed of sattwa, rajas and tamas, and the jiva objectifies the

underlying 'infiniteness of being' (affirmed in scripture as Brahman) as

Ishvara. Then the jiva treats this objectified Totality as a separate Reality

and corresponds with It notions that it considers relevant to itself, only

perfected: omniscience, etc. The Advaitin should call this bluff right away.

 

The objectification (not manifestation) of Brahman as Ishvara in the Universal

context and the objectification of Brahman as Atman in the individual context

are both the jiva's business when it finds itself confounded with maya and seeks

to separate the underlying reality from the superimposition. Otherwise both

constructs are unjustified, for it is that Brahman which in the mithya context

is perceived as this world of maya.

 

When we say Ishvara is as unreal as jiva, we mean it in the sense of this last

sentence. However when we start talking of Ishvara in the context of the jiva's

limitations (like knowledge, power, control, phaladata, etc) we have further

superimposed/deified the Ishvara. This latter doing can be called to question on

account of its apparent treatment of Brahman as individual, something that is

not a necessary part of the definition of Ishvara.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.

Answers - Check it out.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Putranji,

 

I think that we have to understand what the nature of Ishvara is, and

then we can assess specific statements and attitudes about Ishvara in

that light. Ishvara consists of para-prakriti and apara-prakriti,

where para-prakriti is nirvikalpa chaitanya and apara-prakriti is the

sum total of gross, subtle and causal objects. All correct statements

about Ishvara have to be compatible with this understanding.

 

An example is when we talk about Ishvara's " will. " According to the

framework, Ishvara does not have a special, individual mind like jivas

do. Either we say Ishvara has no mind, or Ishvara's " mind " is the

totality of all minds. If we say that some person's will is such and

such, it means that a specific will-vritti takes place in that

person's mind. However, when we say " what happened is the will of

Ishvara, " for instance, we cannot say that a will-vritti took place in

Ishvara's mind because Ishvara has no special mind. So we have to

understand the statement that " this is Ishvara's will " in a different

way - the statement isn't wrong obviously, but to make such a

statement about Ishvara is different from making such a statement

about a jiva. Similarly, if we say Ishvara doesn't have dehatma-

buddhi, this statement is fine if we integrate into this framework. It

doesn't mean that Ishvara has a special mind but the dehatma-vritti is

absent in that mind.

 

Ishvara's will is not some vritti in a super-mind but it means

Ishvara's actions (through the universal upadhi) are not the product

of something inert like prakriti in samhya, but they are as though

preceeded by a will-vritti. Similarly, to say Ishvara doesn't have

dehatma-buddhi means Ishvara's actions are not like the actions of

those with dehatma buddhi who are suffering and trying to get rid of

suffering.

 

Please correct me if I am mistaken in my views, since this is a very

important topic.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

post 2

--- risrajlam <rishi.lamichhane wrote:

 

> Dear Putranji,

>

> I think that we have to understand what the nature

> of Ishvara is, and

> then we can assess specific statements and attitudes

> about Ishvara in

> that light. Ishvara consists of para-prakriti and

> apara-prakriti,

> where para-prakriti is nirvikalpa chaitanya and

> apara-prakriti is the

> sum total of gross, subtle and causal objects. All

> correct statements

> about Ishvara have to be compatible with this

> understanding.

> Ishvara's will is not some vritti in a super-mind

> but it means

> Ishvara's actions (through the universal upadhi) are

> not the product

> of something inert like prakriti in samhya, but they

> are as though

> preceeded by a will-vritti. Similarly, to say

> Ishvara doesn't have

> dehatma-buddhi means Ishvara's actions are not like

> the actions of

> those with dehatma buddhi who are suffering and

> trying to get rid of

> suffering.

 

 

Sri Rishiji,

 

The viewpoints of my last posts may be shared by many

a rationalist person who approaches the concept of

Ishvara in Advaita. It also occurs to me from time to

time, and the " why Ishvara as if individual? " needs to

have response.

 

Let me try to build answers based on my understanding,

your response and the points of Sri Vinayakaji; if you

think they need further modifications, please inform.

 

So the essential difference between the Sankhya

version and Advaita is the nirvikalpa chaitanya

(Brahman?). Sankhya by not affirming Brahman as the

substratum consciousness presents a purely

materialistic interpretation of apara-prakrithi.

Whereas Advaita by recognizing apara as really a

superimposition on the para gives the spiritual

resolution.

 

Thus when we see the world of action and reaction,

we resolve that into an inherent " will " principle as

being its basis. (you state: " as though preceded by a

will-vritti " ). The reason (?) we do this is because we

have to resolve the apara-mithya in the para-satya

which is pure consciousness. AND in manifest

existence, consciousness is best expressed through the

quality of sattwa, and the best expression of sattwa

is in the individual consciousness of self-willing

jivas. Whereas in law-abiding jagat, the quality of

tamas is dominant and hides the nature of

consciousness.

 

[i presume these are the scripturally justified

reasons for why the transition to Ishvara is given the

individualistic framework].

 

Thus in above sense, the scripture does affirm the

jiva as the better model; even though the Totality of

Ishvara is not exactly individual, still the

fundamental principles of Sattwa

(purity/consciousness), Rajas (activity/causality) and

Tamas (inertia) are best represented in unison in the

jiva. Hence when we recognize those principles in

Ishvara as Totality, we consider the

individualistic-language to best represent that

Totality. Moreover though we see all the

maya-principles in Ishvara, He is said to be detached

from them all, again a recognition that Ishvara is our

best reading of pure consciousness: so we identify Him

with pure sattwa that is the detached basis for

apparent qualities of maya.

 

[As example of gap between words and understanding,

the above paragraph is yet to settle internally; but

formally I hope it is in right direction]

 

If we deny this jiva-oriented approach to Ishvara,

then [scripture feels] invariably one falls back to

the Sankhya approach. Therefore whenever we refer to

Brahman in the total context, we speak of That as

He/She in the personal jiva-manner for it is in jiva

that our best understanding of pure sattwa can be

derived.

 

Does this work? Thank you.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.

http://searchmarketing./