brahman and Ishvara

[Guest guest]

--- On Wed, 4/30/08, vaibhav khire <vskhire wrote:

 

 

 

So, can the jiva, from the viewpoint where it is

identifying with the BMI, say that indeed all that it

'sees' is Ishwara (ISAvAsyam idam sarvam?). Since, if

as you conclude, there is nothing beyond Ishwara, as

Ishwara is infinite, everything one sees IS actually

Ishwara.

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

Sadananda: Yes - If I can recognize Iswara in everything without getting carried

away by naama and ruupa which are mithyaa - the missions is essentially

accomplished. If I see the Lord everywhere, I have to see Him in me too. Then

there is only the Lord - both seer and seen is Lord. I and Lord have become one

in essence.

 

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

But that brings in the question whether Ishwara is

sentient or insentient! (Talk of blasphemy here!). If

Ishwara is ALL I see, and that includes myself as well

as all the other jivas, then surely it is as sentient

as me and the other jivas. And since all jivas are

part of it, Ishwara in turn is a collection of all

jivas.

 

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

Sadananda: We started with Iswara as creator - creator by definition is sentient

since inert things cannot creat. If everything is Iswara then everything is

pervaded by Iswara and hence insentient if I see any it is only apparent

superficiality.

 

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

The sun reflects in every drop of water, but it also

reflects in the whole lake. ...

Sadananda: Yes to the example given. This is bimba-pratibimba vaada - Which is

being discussed in the knowledge series too.

 

---------

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Shree Sang Kona - Welcome to the group and to your active participation. We are

all novice here and learn from each other. Keep the mind open and accept those

that are convincing to your mind, as it grows. That is the best we can do.

 

The mind that has concluded is not available for knowledge.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- On Wed, 4/30/08, Sang Kona <sang.kona wrote:

 

 

> I am pretty novice is spiritual practice.

> I really learn a lot from the posting in this group. So

> everyone on this

> list is guru for me./terms/

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

First let me join others and thank Sadaji for his contributions on

this subject matter with clarity. One of the important ingredients

for understanding the role of Ishwara in Advaita is FAITH. Faith and

Ishwara are inseparable and Sadaji has rightly emphasized the

limitation of logic in our understanding of Ishwara.

 

Realistically speaking, if and when we try to use `logic alone' to

explain Advaita philosophy we can't avoid the appearance of

blasphemy! One of the many ways to avoid blasphemy will be to accept

that the answer to the question " Who Am I? " is beyond logic. Any

logic that attempts to explain " Who Am I? " will likely becomes

circular since we can never find the `starting point of the circle.

Satisfactory scientific explanation using logical means can only be

possible with the knowledge on the beginning of eternity. Since we

have no knowledge on the beginning of eternity we seek the religion

which requires a leap of FAITH.

 

The approach of science and religion is often explained through the

peeling of the layers of an onion. Science starts on the outside and

peels off layer after layer as knowledge is acquired. Religion on the

other hand starts at the center of the onion and moves its way

outward. It is able to start at the unknown center with the leap of

FAITH. For religion the center is God (Ishwara) and He is eternal,

omnipotent, and is the creator, sustainer and the liberator.

 

The acceptance of any philosophy - Advaita, Dwaita, Visistadwaita or

others that fall within umbrella of Sanatana Dharma requires no

contradiction from what is stated in the scriptures – specifically

the Sruti and Smriti (that includes Upanishads, Brahmasuutra,

Bhagavad Gita and Dharma Sastra). Scripture strongly advocates (as

its fundamental) that there was never a beginning and it also

recommends not to waste the time in trying to find the beginning. The

subtle message is that we should employ scripture whenever we get

entangled and trapped inside the circular logic. One of the

fundamental problems that we face is the complexity in the

interpretation of what does the scripture really say. We also have

great difficulty in understanding of the interpretation of the

scripture by our beloved Sankaracharya. Given this constraint we

will likely have endless debates on our understanding of Jiva,

Ishwara and the Brahman. In subtle terms, the scripture and Acharya

Sankara seem to focus our attention more on FAITH and less on logic.

In the tug of war between FAITH and logic, FAITH has been declared as

the ultimate winner. The reason is quite simple – Acharya does seem

to emphasize that the most important ingredient for Self-realization

is Grace from Ishwara. This is what I will call as Ishwaratvam – and

I honestly will not be able to explain what it really means! FAITH

can never be cultivated without implanting Divinity within one's

HEART! Ishwaratvam can never be understood without FAITH.

 

I have attended discourses by Swami Chinmayanandaji, Swami

Dayanandaji, Swami Tejomayanandaji, Paramacharya Chandrasekara

Bharathi and others. Whenever they talk about `Ishwara' during their

speeches, they have never treated Ishwara as a concept but they have

emphasized that Ishwara should be embraced as an infinite eternal,

omnipotent entity residing within the heart of the seeker. All we

need is an open heart surgery to implant Divinity and Ishwaratvam the

most important ingredient for Self-realization!

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: Bhagavad Gita emphasizes the importance of FAITH in every

chapter and especially in chapters

 

Note: Bhagavad Gita emphasizes the importance of FAITH explained

Ishwaratvam through various verses in all chapters. The following

key verses in chapter 9 (verses 4, 5, 11, 22, 29, 33) and chapter 18

(verse 66) provide the clues for understanding the role of FAITH and

Ishwaratvam.

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On

>

> My statements may be circular logic and may sound also like

blasphamy for

> some, but that is the situation I am in. Kaale jagat bakshakaH -Time

> swallows the universe along with Iswara that created the Universe

but I

> swallow the time too, when I go to deep sleep.

>

> Now where is the universe? where is jagat and where is this Iswara

and who

> am I? All disolved in Me.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote:

>FAITH can never be cultivated without implanting Divinity within

one's HEART! Ishwaratvam can never be understood without FAITH.

 

>I have attended discourses by Swami Chinmayanandaji, Swami

> Dayanandaji, Swami Tejomayanandaji, Paramacharya Chandrasekara

> Bharathi and others. Whenever they talk about `Ishwara' during their

> speeches, they have never treated Ishwara as a concept but they have

> emphasized that Ishwara should be embraced as an infinite eternal,

> omnipotent entity residing within the heart of the seeker. All we

> need is an open heart surgery to implant Divinity and Ishwaratvam

the most important ingredient for Self-realization!

 

Dear Sri Ram Chandran,

Please permit me to quote few passages of Sri Shankara:

 

(1) sarvasya AtmatvAcca brahmAstitvaprasiddhiH ||

[brahma Sutra : 1-1-1]

(2) na hi AtmA nAma kasyacit kadAcit aprasiddhaH prApyaH hEyaH

upAdEyO vA ||

[bhagadgItA : 18-50]

(3) sarva SRutiShu ca brahmanyAtmaSabdaprayOgAt ||

[bRuhadAranyaka : 2-1-20]

(4) ya Eva nirAkartA tadEva tasya svarUpam ||

[brahma Sutra : 2-3-7]

(5) AtmA hi nAma svarUpam ||

[brahma Sutra : 1-1-6]

Hundreds of such passages are available in the commentaries of

Sri Shankara. It is self evident from the above passages that

Brahman/Ishvara is none other than my own TRUE NATURE. This is not

something based on faith but on one's own anubhava which is

self-evident, self-established ,self-luminous TRUTH. Sruthi and

acharya help us to see this fact within ourselves as said by the

Sruthi " AtmanyEvAtmAnam paSyati || Bru.u. 4-4-23 " . Here the word used

is " paSyati " which means 'sees', 'cognizes', 'apprehends'. It does not

say " Have faith " . Vedantic truths are not meant for either blind

acceptance or blind faith. Faith is born out of realization of the

truth. The sequence is " Trust the words of Sruti, see/verify the

vastu which the Sruti points out, and as a result of this faith

dawns " .Absolutely there is no need for any kind of open heart surgery

at all as recommended by you in the sentence " All we need is an open

heart surgery to implant Divinity and Ishwaratvam the most important

ingredient for Self-realization! " , because Divinity and Ishwarthvam

are already there for us to claim as our birth right.

 

Mere attending the discourses of the teachers is not going to help

a mumukshu. He has to see the fact within himself and the teacher

should help the mumukshu to cognize the teaching within himself. The

teaching should never remain as dead words, it should be a living fact

Mere faith makes one to cling to dead words. It will make one a

mantravit but not an Atmavit which is the goal of every sincere mumukshu.

The above understanding of mine is due to the grace of my revered

Guru who was not a famous one like the others whose names are

mentioned above.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

 

 

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenivasa-ji:

 

Thank you for sharing this.

 

Self-Realization is indeed absolutely direct, without any medium, and

confers the knowledge of the identity of Jeeva and Brahaman. Self sees It

Self by It Self and through It Self.

 

Our sages spoke with complete confidence and conviction based on their own

knowledge. Your Guru transmitted this and made this knowledge come alive for

you. For a mumukshu faith can/does play a role and trust in the scriptures

and the Guru propels him or her to direct the effort with intensity to

understanding the nature and mystery of existence.

 

Even that faith, however, is only Self-Knowledge bursting out and revealing

itself. It is due to the mental conditioning that we take our inclination to

the truth as based on faith. This faith is just the tip of the great

iceberg. In Reality it is the Self It Self making its presence felt to It

Self. This manifests as faith until the mental conditioning thins out and

Reality recognizes It Self as the Self in full clarity.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of narayana145

Friday, May 02, 2008 12:51 AM

advaitin

Re: brahman and Ishvara

 

 

Mere attending the discourses of the teachers is not going to help

a mumukshu. He has to see the fact within himself and the teacher

should help the mumukshu to cognize the teaching within himself. The

teaching should never remain as dead words, it should be a living fact

Mere faith makes one to cling to dead words. It will make one a

mantravit but not an Atmavit which is the goal of every sincere mumukshu.

The above understanding of mine is due to the grace of my revered

Guru who was not a famous one like the others whose names are

mentioned above.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear Sri Sreenivasa:

 

Honestly speaking, what I have stated does not contradict what you

have stated. Your last statement of your posting reveals your respect

and faith on your Guru – without that we will be left with

only `questions without any answers or understanding!'

 

Attachment to Body, Mind and Intellect (BMI) will not liberate us or

to identify us with our True Divine Identity. How to divert our

attention from BMI to the Brahman is the focus of advaita philosophy.

Shraddha is an integral part of Hindu philosophy and Shankara overly

emphasizes it through the verses of Bhajagovindham. Shankara in the

short treatise on Bhajagovindham asks us to move away from the

transactional reality of the world of BMI to the transcendental

reality of the Brahman. He forcefully emphasizes the importance of

Shraddha (faith with conviction) ask us to attach to Govinda

(Ishwara).. His message is very subtle and he conveys the following:

(1) the attachment to Govinda is the only attachment by which our

attachment to the world of BMI can be detached. (2) The desire of

Govinda is the only desire by which all desires can be eliminated.

(3) Surrender to Govinda is the only means to dissolve our

identification with the world of BMI. (4) Our uninterrupted thought

of Govinda (Ananyaashchintayanto maam) is the only means to keep the

mind free of all thoughts. Our shadhana (efforts) should start by

reading, understanding and practicing what is being stated by the

Guru with Shraddha we will be able recognize our True Divine

Identity. It should be pointed that what is being emphasized is

Shraddha and definitely not blind-faith.

 

I hope this clarification helps,

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note on Bhajagovindham: Now, what is " Bhaja " ? It is not the

mechanical repetition of Lord's name without the presence of mind.

It is not a mere religious ritual or observance. The Bhajan of God

Govinda (Ishwara) should come from the bottom of one's heart. It

should be true love and devotion to Him; Calling on Him in that

spirit is what is meant by " Bhaja Govindam " . It may not be a

coincidence that Sri Sankara chose to name God by the word `Govinda':

His Guru's name was Govinda Pada.

 

advaitin , " narayana145 " <narayana145

wrote:

>

> The above understanding of mine is due to the grace of my

revered

> Guru who was not a famous one like the others whose names are

> mentioned above.

>

> With warm and respectful regards,

> Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote:

>

> Namaste:

>

> First let me join others and thank Sadaji for his contributions on

> this subject matter with clarity. One of the important ingredients

> for understanding the role of Ishwara in Advaita is FAITH. Faith and

> Ishwara are inseparable and Sadaji has rightly emphasized the

> limitation of logic in our understanding of Ishwara.

>

> Realistically speaking, if and when we try to use `logic alone' to

> explain Advaita philosophy we can't avoid the appearance of

> blasphemy! One of the many ways to avoid blasphemy will be to accept

> that the answer to the question " Who Am I? " is beyond logic.

 

In subtle terms, the scripture and Acharya

> Sankara seem to focus our attention more on FAITH and less on logic.

> In the tug of war between FAITH and logic, FAITH has been declared as

> the ultimate winner. The reason is quite simple – Acharya does seem

> to emphasize that the most important ingredient for Self-realization

> is Grace from Ishwara. This is what I will call as Ishwaratvam – and

> I honestly will not be able to explain what it really means! FAITH

> can never be cultivated without implanting Divinity within one's

> HEART! Ishwaratvam can never be understood without FAITH.

>

> I have attended discourses by Swami Chinmayanandaji, Swami

> Dayanandaji, Swami Tejomayanandaji, Paramacharya Chandrasekara

> Bharathi and others. Whenever they talk about `Ishwara' during their

> speeches, they have never treated Ishwara as a concept but they have

> emphasized that Ishwara should be embraced as an infinite eternal,

> omnipotent entity residing within the heart of the seeker. All we

> need is an open heart surgery to implant Divinity and Ishwaratvam the

> most important ingredient for Self-realization!

>

> With my warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

 

Namaste Ram Chandran-ji,

 

Thank you for your lovely post about faith, logic,

advaita, and what you refer to as, 'Ishwaratvam.'

 

While it is my understanding that the existence

of Ishwara can only be arrived at through shruti

pramana, once the existence of Ishwara is accepted

with shraddha, logic supports it.

 

At least this has been my experience.

 

The more I seem to understand the explanations

of Ishwara as given by my teacher, and the more

I look around at the creation, I don't seem to be

able to find any contradictions with what I have

been taught.

 

Although I may not always totally understand

all of the words at the time I hear them, clarity

does seem to be gradually gained about Ishwara and

brahman, which I, at least, do not find contradict, but

rather compliment each other, (although no doubt,

my ability to explain exactly how that is so may be

limited.)

 

One understanding, (of Ishwara), seems to make sense

of my experience as a jiva within the creation. And the

other understanding, (of brahman), explains how it is that

all that I see and perceive through this jiva upadhi, including

the self that I am, are all in the final analysis, nondual.

And to my mind, neither understanding excludes the other,

but rather they enhance and support each other.

 

'Faith, pending understanding,' is the way I have often

heard the word, 'shraddha,' translated, to distinguish

shraddha from 'blind faith.' This possibly explains the

word shraddha in a way that might negate any misunderstanding

about it.

 

If I didn't have shraddha in the words of the teacher and

the teaching, I couldn't even listen in the first place,

nor, would my mind be available for the pramana to work.

I have to trust that the teacher knows the destination, and the

is able to wield the means which allows me to recognize it too.

 

And then ,of course, there is the famous line

from the Gita, which translates as

'the one who has shraddha gains this knowledge.'

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Namaste Durgaji:

 

Thanks for your kind remarks. I agree with what you have stated with

respect to the role of Shraddha and the acceptance of Ishwara as

essential ingredients for mind purification. By accepting Ishwara, the

world of BMI get submerged with the presence of Divinity (This is

explained in greater details through the entire chapter of 10 of

Bhagavad Gita). This submerging process will enable the subject to

internalize all external objects so that object and subject get

superimposed. A serious seeker has to accept Ishwara as the starting

point of the path to salvation with Shraddha. An air-plane can't just

fly in the sky and it needs preliminary preparations before take-off.

Similarly a seeker also needs preparations and the very first step is

to accept the presence of Ishwara in everything, everywhere and at all

the time! This preparation will enable the seeker to recognize that

Ishwara is within and is not an external entity - the submerging of the

object and the subject!

 

with my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , " Durga " <durgaji108 wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Ram Chandran-ji,

>

> Thank you for your lovely post about faith, logic,

> advaita, and what you refer to as, 'Ishwaratvam.'

>

> While it is my understanding that the existence

> of Ishwara can only be arrived at through shruti

> pramana, once the existence of Ishwara is accepted

> with shraddha, logic supports it.

>

[Guest guest]

Pranams Sada-ji.

Thank you for your comments. I am humbly submitting my

perspective, again based on my understanding alone.

 

**********

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:> Since, I am part of the

creation, Iswara that I have created has to create me

too so that I can create Him! My statements may be

circular logic and may sound also like blasphamy for

some, but that is the situation I am in. Kaale jagat

bakshakaH -Time swallows the universe along with

Iswara that created the Universe but I swallow the

time too, when I go to deep sleep.

>

> Now where is the universe? where is jagat and where

is this Iswara and who am I? All disolved in Me.

> That is advaita - ultmately I alone am - jagat and

Iswara folded in to myself since I brought them in the

first becuase of my ignorance now ignorance lost, I do

not need both of them! - aham brahaamsi not jivosmi.

> Now is Iswara infinite or jagat infinite - when both

are swallowed by me who is really infinite.

**********

 

I think your words here - instead of being taken

literally as they are written - need to be very

carefully understood Sada-ji.

 

The " i " that goes to sleep is not the I that swallows

time - is it?

The i that goes to sleep is the ignorance-ridden jiva

- the notional ahankAra - how can he swallow time when

he himself is subject to it - all he can swallow is

the bitter pill of samsAra when he reluctantly wakes

up in the morning out of deep sleep, (and usually late

for work! :-)

 

On the other hand the I that swallows time is the I,

that never went to sleep, the I, that is unchanged

across all three states - wake,dream,sleep - who is

this I? - it is nothing othet than the real Me, the

unattached ParamAtman, the eternal Purusha, the

All-witnessing AntaryAmi, in other words Ishwara.

 

This I is My own true swarUpA and wonder of wonders it

is IshwarA Alone, one without a second!

 

In the wake of knowledge, the entity getting dissolved

is the ahankAra - the loka-travelling, state-changing,

notional " i " - and yes, a jagat that was " really "

separate from this notional i has also definitely been

dissolved - its mithyatvam having been sublatively

understood - and the true svarUpa of the jiva alone

shines unobstructed - Paramtama IshwarA.

 

IN deep sleep, the notional i falls back into the

sweet embrace of Maya Devi and suckles on the bliss of

a timebound communion with the Lord ParamEshwara.

 

In the wake of knowledge, the notional i meets with

ITS own dissolution, having transcended the cloak of

MayADevi, by the Grace of its own swaruPa - IshwArA.

What remains is Eternal Being, Pure, ever Divine. It

is not a question of that ignorant ahankara i

" needing " or " not needing " Ishwara, now having gained

knowledge, it is rather there being no " i " other than

IshwArA.

 

In your subsequent post (where there really does not

seem to be any discernible disparity between us even

on " perspective " .)you say

" Sat chit ananda being akhanda is the same as Iswara

which is same as Brahman. "

 

This statement above is all the only contention that I

have also been saying all along.

 

It is also what Shankara himself says -

 

Evam dehadvayAtanyah AtmA Purusha Ishwara

SarvAtmA sarvarUpascha Sarvateeto aham avyayah

 

The immutable Atman, the substratum I, is thus

different from these two bodies(the sthoola and

sookshma shareerAs) and is the Purusha, the Ishwara,

the Self of All.

It is present in every form and yet transcends them

all.

 

The understanding of this alone is advaitA, as you

yourself have taught.

 

My humble pranAms to you

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

--- On Sat, 5/3/08, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

 

>

I think your words here - instead of being taken

literally as they are written - need to be very

carefully understood Sada-ji.

>

Shyamji - My praNAms.

 

Yes. I could not have said it better.

 

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

>

The " i " that goes to sleep is not the I that swallows

time - is it?

The i that goes to sleep is the ignorance-ridden jiva

- the notional ahankAra - how can he swallow time when

he himself is subject to it - all he can swallow is

the bitter pill of samsAra when he reluctantly wakes

up in the morning out of deep sleep, (and usually late

for work! :-)

>

 

Yes . You are absolutely right. The ahakaara goes to sleep but not the Saakshii.

If I identify myself with ahankaara, what you say is right.

 

If I identify with saakshii, then it is upahita caitanya, apparently conditioned

in the upaadhiis but not attributive - please see the post 12 on knowledge

series where saakshii caitanya and Iswara caitanya were discussed as per Vedanta

ParibhASha. Saakshii of jiiiva in the deep sleep has the saakshyam of that BMI

that is resting only - other BMI's may be awake. When Iswara sleeps - as Ch. 8

of Gita explains - all Jiivas merge into Him. The Iswara-saakshii that is awake

is now illuminating all jiivas and jagat going into avyakta form. It is not that

saakshii of jiiva is one with Iswara since we are looking at it from vyavahaara

point only. From paaramaarthika point this discussion has no relevance.

 

With jnaanam it will be recognized as the Brahman where saakshii-saakshyam both

sublimate in that knowledge. SwaruupataH or by inherent nature, there is no

difference in the jiiva-saaskhii and Iswara saakshii -but is one is localized

and the other is globalized like pot-space vs. external space. Pot space can

still say I am part of the total space, even though space is part-less. The

point, as you discussed due to ignorance that is still getting illumined by

saakshii in deep sleep state, there is saakshii-saakshyam duality until the

knowledge takes place. Hence jiiva gets up with that ignorance alone along with

his samsaara baggage.

 

The point is even as jiiva, I swallow time as the mind is folded. But what is

lacking is the knowledge of myself who could swallow the time and space.

 

Since Iswara has no ignorance, he is conscious of the swallowing of the time and

space too - hence we call his sleep as yoga nidra with maaya (instead of

ignorance)in unmanifested form.

 

Is jiiva the same as Iswara in deep sleep - yes or no. From the point of

swaruupa (chandogya analyzes this using 'swapiti' word.), yes since both are one

caitanya swaruupa only. But in terms of upahita caitanya, or witnessing

consciousness (that did not sleep during sleep), NO.

----------

 

>

On the other hand the I that swallows time is the I,

that never went to sleep, the I, that is unchanged

across all three states - wake,dream,sleep - who is

this I? - it is nothing other than the real Me, the

unattached ParamAtman, the eternal Purusha, the

All-witnessing AntaryAmi, in other words Ishwara.

>

Shyamji - In essence you are right. But as I explained about the difference

between jiiva sakshii and iswara saakshii - technically they are not the same.

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

>

This I is My own true swarUpA and wonder of wonders it

is IshwarA Alone, one without a second!

>

The wonder happens truly only in the awakening of knowledge where both jiiva

saakshii and Iswara saakshii are understood as one. At that time notions of both

jiiva and Iswara also drop too.

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

>

In the wake of knowledge, the entity getting dissolved

is the ahankAra - the loka-travelling, state-changing,

notional " i " - and yes, a jagat that was " really "

separate from this notional i has also definitely been

dissolved - its mithyatvam having been sublatively

understood - and the true svarUpa of the jiva alone

shines unobstructed - Paramtama IshwarA.

>

Shyamji - True but also understood that there is no jiiiva-jagat-Iswara as

substantives - there is only one substantive for all the three and any

differentiation even as Iswara and jagat is only at vyavahaara level. vyavahaara

is understood as vyavahaara and paaramaarthika is understood as paaramaarthika.

Jiivanmukta has this by-level understanding what I called as he has visa to

travel both planes!

 

From my understanding, the substantive understanding that I am one with

Iswara/jagat is not the same as identity at vyavahaara level. Hence I do not

become omniscient or omnipotent like Iswara with the awakening of knowledge that

aham brahmaasmi. The reason is aham brahmaasmi even now when I do not know

that. With the knowledge, all wrong notions about myself drops. I do not really

become Brahman, since I already am. Now I do not know that, but with knowledge I

will have that knowledge. It is not the same as acquiring sidhhis and powers of

Iswara as I see. I may get them if I strive for it but they do not necessarily

follow. Hence I understand the 10th slokas of DakshiNamuurthi that shree

Sastriji explained beautifully is only a glorification of the jiivanmukta as

phala siddhi for DakshiNamurthy sthuti.

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

 

>

IN deep sleep, the notional i falls back into the

sweet embrace of Maya Devi and suckles on the bliss of

a timebound communion with the Lord ParamEshwara.

 

In the wake of knowledge, the notional i meets with

ITS own dissolution, having transcended the cloak of

MayADevi, by the Grace of its own swaruPa - IshwArA.

What remains is Eternal Being, Pure, ever Divine. It

is not a question of that ignorant ahankara i

" needing " or " not needing " Ishwara, now having gained

knowledge, it is rather there being no " i " other than

IshwArA.

>

Shyamji - Yes - the truth is I-Iswara-jagat all understood as one. Because of

the uppadhiis of jiivanmukta the limiting upahita caitanya still remains

different from the Iswara-caitanya, although from caitanya part I understood

there are no divisions in terms of jiiva-iswara-jagat. At vyavahaara level the

differences remain. Hence Shankara's beautiful compositions including

DakshiNamurthy sthotram along with Bhajagovindam.

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

>

In your subsequent post (where there really does not

seem to be any discernible disparity between us even

on " perspective " .)you say

" Sat chit ananda being akhanda is the same as Iswara

which is same as Brahman. "

 

This statement above is all the only contention that I

have also been saying all along.

>

Yes - in the akhanda - there is no more jiva-Iswara-jagat khanda also.

All names and forms merge or understood as one.

 

But when the uppadhiis fall for jiivanmukta - then - nirupaadhika caitanya -

absolute merging without any superficialities into one is recognized.

 

Shyamji - There are no disagreements - we are providing different perspectives

and in the process clear understanding of the nature of reality.

----------

>

It is also what Shankara himself says -

 

Evam dehadvayAtanyah AtmA Purusha Ishwara

SarvAtmA sarvarUpascha Sarvateeto aham avyayah

 

The immutable Atman, the substratum I, is thus

different from these two bodies(the sthoola and

sookshma shareerAs) and is the Purusha, the Ishwara,

the Self of All.

It is present in every form and yet transcends them

all.

 

The understanding of this alone is advaitA, as you

yourself have taught.

 

>

Yes - that aatma that transcends - jiiva-jagat-Iswara - is pure sat chit ananda

swaruupa. That alone I AM.

 

PraNAms.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Sitara-ji

PranAms.

 

There are many teachers of modern non-duality(Krishnamurthy, et al)

who preach about the need for dissolving all concepts or being ready

for the same.

 

The Vedantic approach is decidedly different.

 

It is not concepts that need to be dissolved - but the conceiver, the Ego.

 

For this the three ingredients are listed in the kaivalya Up

 

shraddha bhakti and dhyAna

faith, devotion to the Lord, and meditation (on the teachings of the

AchArya and Shruti) in that order.

 

Only this can give the Ego the strength to allow Grace to dissolve it.

Then alone is cognized the Self, the ParamAtman, He who is beyond

concepts.

 

The AshtavakrA SamhitA(Gita) also coveys the verisame truth

 

AtmAnam advayam kaschit jAnAti Jagad-Ishwaram

 

Rare indeed is the one who knows the Self as One without a second and

as the Lord of the Universe

 

VijnAte SAkshi Purushe ParamAtmAni cha Ishware..

 

As i have realized the Supreme Self who is the witness, the PurushA,

IshwarA...

 

IshwarA is BOTH the way and the goal,

- both the sought, the seeking and ultimately (as will be discovered

ere long) the seeker Himself.

 

Shivo bhoktA Shivo bhojya Shivo kartA Shivo karmA Shivo karanAtmakaha.

 

 

Humble pranAms

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

advaitin , " Sitara " <smitali17 wrote:

>

> Sadaji,

>

> Pranams

>

> Whatever you said is expressed in Ashtavakra Gita as you certainly

know, which is adressed to those who are ready to dissolve all

concepts into pure satchitananda, Self or as you said: Me.

>

> No need to start up the whole discussion again: polarizing between

> Brahman and Ishvara is useless. Ishvara is wonderful and can help

> tremendously on the way - as Durga described in her/(his?) last post.

>

> Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti!

>

> Sitara

>

[Guest guest]

Shyam-ji,

 

Pranams,

 

> It is not concepts that need to be dissolved - but the conceiver, the

Ego.

 

Yes, correction accepted. this was assumed.

Isn't the I (ego) also a concept? There is no I, so what else can it be

but an idea. Do I confuse philosophical terms here?

Of course the real I, Brahman, can never be dissolved, as it is all

there is.

 

 

> For this the three ingredients are listed in the kaivalya Up

> shraddha bhakti and dhyAna

> faith, devotion to the Lord, and meditation (on the teachings of the

> AchArya and Shruti) in that order.

> Only this can give the Ego the strength to allow Grace to dissolve it.

> Then alone is cognized the Self, the ParamAtman, He who is beyond

> concepts.

 

Yes, also agreed. My post was adressed to Sadaji though who has got that

strength already. I would not even mention the Ashtavakra Gita to

someone who still needs to develop faith, devotion and meditation.

 

 

> IshwarA is BOTH the way and the goal,

> - both the sought, the seeking and ultimately (as will be discovered

> ere long) the seeker Himself.

 

Yes!

 

Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti!

 

Sitara

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

First let me apologize for injecting my understanding in the middle

of an interesting conversation. Technically speaking, Ego is

the 'cause' and 'concept or idea' is the effect and at the same time,

the cause and effect are inseparable! With that Vedantic

understanding they imply the same. For those less exposed to Vedanta,

Shyamji's point may be less confusing. But the subject of the

ongoing discussion is quite complex due to the fact that many

competing frameworks provide similar (or identical) conclusions.

 

After reading the ongoing discussions with respect to non-ego, we

have an alternative way of looking at advaita as a philosophy of `non-

individuality.' I believe that the terminology of non-individuality

may be more appealing and superior to the terminology of `non-

duality.' It focuses on the importance of dissolving the

individuality identified with BMI by surrendering identity to the

Supreme (Ishwara). Interestingly all the three Vedantic schools

(also other religions) emphasize that `ego' is the biggest obstacle

for human salvation.

 

For those interested on a similar concept in quantum physics, I

recommend the following four links with interesting discussions on

non-individuality, non-separability and holism.

 

(1) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-idind/

Identity and Individuality in Quantum Theory

First published Tue Feb 15, 2000; substantive revision Fri Jan 20,

2006

 

What are the metaphysical implications of quantum physics? One way of

approaching this question is to consider the impact of the theory on

our understanding of objects as individuals with well defined

identity conditions. One view is that quantum theory implies that the

fundamental particles of physics cannot be regarded as individual

objects in this sense. Such a view has motivated the development of

non-standard formal systems which are appropriate for representing

such non-individual objects. However, it has also been argued that

quantum physics is in fact compatible with a metaphysics of

individual objects. Nevertheless, such objects are indistinguishable

in a sense which leads to the violation of Leibniz's famous Principle

of the Identity of Indiscernibles. Finally, this underdetermination

of the metaphysics of individuality by the physics has important

implications for the realism-antirealism debate.

 

(2) http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002431/

Separability and Non-Individuality Is it possible to conciliate (at

least a form of) Einstein's realism with quantum mechanics? By

Krause, Décio (2005)

 

(3) http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001592/

The Mathematics of Non-Individuality

Krause, Décio (2004) The Mathematics of Non-Individuality.

Abstract

 

Some of the forerunners of quantum theory regarded the basic entities

of such theories as 'non-individuals'. One of the problems is to

treat collections of such 'things', for they do not obey the axioms

of standard set theories like Zermelo-Fraenkel. In this paper,

collections of objects to which the standard concept of identity

(Leibinizian identity) does not apply are termed 'quasi-sets'. The

motivation for such a theory, linked to what we call 'the Manin

problem', is presented, so as its specific axioms. At the end, it is

shown how quantum statistics can be obtained within quasi-set theory.

 

(4) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-holism/

Holism and Nonseparability in Physics

First published Thu Jul 22, 1999; substantive revision Mon Jul 26,

2004

 

It has sometimes been suggested that quantum phenomena exhibit a

characteristic holism or nonseparability, and that this distinguishes

quantum from classical physics. One puzzling quantum phenomenon

arises when one performs measurements of spin or polarization on

certain separated quantum systems. The results of these measurements

exhibit patterns of statistical correlation that resist traditional

causal explanation. Some have held that it is possible to understand

these patterns as instances or consequences of quantum holism or

nonseparability. Just what holism and nonseparability are supposed to

be has not always been made clear, though, and each of these notions

has been understood in different ways. Moreover, while some have

taken holism and nonseparability to come to the same thing, others

have thought it important to distinguish the two. Any evaluation of

the significance of quantum holism and/or nonseparability must rest

on a careful analysis of these notions.

 

 

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " Sitara " <smitali17 wrote:

>

 

> Isn't the I (ego) also a concept? There is no I, so what else can

> it be but an idea. Do I confuse philosophical terms here?

> Of course the real I, Brahman, can never be dissolved, as it is all

> there is.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Ram Chandran,

 

2008/5/5 Ram Chandran <ramvchandran:

> After reading the ongoing discussions with respect to non-ego, we

> have an alternative way of looking at advaita as a philosophy of `non-

> individuality.' I believe that the terminology of non-individuality

> may be more appealing and superior to the terminology of `non-

> duality.' It focuses on the importance of dissolving the

> individuality identified with BMI by surrendering identity to the

> Supreme (Ishwara). Interestingly all the three Vedantic schools

> (also other religions) emphasize that `ego' is the biggest obstacle

> for human salvation.

>

 

The term " ego " seems to 3 distinct connotations. In normal parlance,

it is merely looked upon as an undesirable character trait - hence

being egoistic is the opposite of being humble. Most traditions, so

far as I can see, emphasize only on this understanding of ego.

Humility generally improves human relationships and makes one happier,

and hence this kind of emphasis is natural.

 

The second connotation of ego is the sense of agency or doership. In

most Indian traditions, whether of the vaidika or avaidika variety,

liberation is the realization that the sense of doership is an error

and not real.

 

The third connotation of ego is individuality itself. Liberation as

the loss of individuality seems to be reflected only in advaita

vedAnta, other non-dualist vaidika traditions such as the shaiva

tradition of Kashmir, and the various schools of the bauddha-s.

 

--

santoShaH paramo lAbhaH satsa~NgaH paramA gatiH I

vicAraH paramaM j~nAnaM shamo hi paramaM sukham II

- yoga vAsiShTha

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ramesh Krishnamurthy " <rkmurthy

wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Ram Chandran,

>

> > Supreme (Ishwara). Interestingly all the three Vedantic schools

> > (also other religions) emphasize that `ego' is the biggest

obstacle for human salvation.

> >

>

> The term " ego " seems to 3 distinct connotations. In normal parlance,

> In most Indian traditions, whether of the vaidika or avaidika variety,

> liberation is the realization that the sense of doership is an error

> and not real.

>

 

praNAms to all advaitins.

 

Very engrossing discussion and I am silently obsorbing the import of it.

 

Have a question. Does is not the Ego that encompasses the Chitta and

puts a stamp on every interaction with the manifested world?

 

Chitta does not have any doership. However, from my understanding of

the nature of Chitta is that it is effected by Tendensies (Vrittis??).

These tendensies are carried forward from life to life as Sanchita

Karma (I hope my understanding of this model is correct). The only way

any change is brought into the nature of these tendensies and attain

salvation (attain nirgunatavam) is to remove the other two gunas and

make the Satwa guna component more predominant in the Sanchita Karma.

Since Chitta has no doership, the only tool out there to achieve this

is the Ego. So in addition to being the biggest obstacle for salvation,

Ego is also the only thing that can help you to reach there.

 

Is my understanding wrong.

 

Thanks and I will listen silently.

 

Sudesh

[Guest guest]

Now where is the universe? where is jagat and where is this Iswara and who

am I? All disolved in Me.

That is advaita - ultmately I alone am - jagat and Iswara folded in to

myself since I brought them in the first becuase of my ignorance now

ignorance lost, I do not need both of them! - aham brahaamsi not jivosmi.

Now is Iswara infinite or jagat infinite - when both are swallowed by me

who is really infinite.

 

 

 

 

 

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

You have conveyed the truth of Ishwara in advaita so beautifully

prabhuji...Kindly accept my heartfelt prostrations...When I said the same

truth that IshvarAstitiva (existence of Ishvara) is valid at the empirical

level, some prabhuji-s in this list started to diagnose some disease in me

:-)) Yes, as long as there is jIva who is identifying his identity aloof

from jagat, he needs a srushti karta (creator) and he wanted him to be

omnipotent & omniscient...Yes, we all desparately need the compassion

(vAtsalya / karuNa) of this Ishvara (IshvarAnugraha) for our *self*

aggrandizement...But this Ishvara is not different from socalled jIva &

jagat since brahman is the material as well as efficient cause of this

tripad in this transactional reality. jnAni like Sankara bhagavatpAda who

has realized the ultimate nature of his non duality, without any hesitation

declare that : evaM avidyAkrutanAmarUpOpAdhyanurOdhI IshvarO

bhavati..(sUtra bhAshya 2-1-14). But this ultimate reality of Ishvara does

not anyway come in the way of spiritual seeker as a hurdle...coz. this

seeker is not yet realized that he is ONE without second...So, for him

Ishwara & his anugraha is as real as he *is*...

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

But that brings in the question whether Ishwara is

sentient or insentient! (Talk of blasphemy here!). If

Ishwara is ALL I see, and that includes myself as well

as all the other jivas, then surely it is as sentient

as me and the other jivas. And since all jivas are

part of it, Ishwara in turn is a collection of all

jivas.

 

 

Sadananda: We started with Iswara as creator - creator by definition is

sentient since inert things cannot creat. If everything is Iswara then

everything is pervaded by Iswara and hence insentient if I see any it is

only apparent superficiality.

 

 

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Yes, this Ishvara not only creator, shvEtAsvEtara (6-7) shruti says he is

the greatest ruler of all rulers, he is the highest god of all the gods,

the greatest protector of all protectors and beyond all he is the praise

worthy ruler of the world..Going by this shruti verdict shankara also says

in sUtra bhAshya (1-1-2) that the origination etc. of the universe with

its multifarious characteristics cannot be possibly conceived to be

effected by any cause other than the *Ishvara possessing these

qualities..No, doubt, Sankara here personifying the nirguNa, nirvishEsha

brahman & attributing some qualities to him keeping in mind *the

creation*...Sankara elsewhere negates these specific features and says

these have been spoken of *as though* they were qualities of brahman which

is styled as the Ishvara....

 

 

I am still awaiting clarification from the prabhuji-s of this forum with

regard to difference between apara brahman & Ishvara...Would someone kind

enough to throw more light on this issue??

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Theories like 'San matha sthapana' are all

constructed only on these wrong extensions. There is no evidence for

Iswaratva being ascribed to Shiva Brahma Indra or any other deities

in the Prasthana traya Bashyams. Even Sureswara in the Antharyami

Brahmana and in many other Vartika instances coin Visnu for the term

Iswara.

 

 

praNAms Sri Devanathan prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

You said it is from gIta bhAshya, but you have not given the chapter &

verse reference..( I am too lethargic to find it on my own :-)) Yes, as

you rightly said shankara often says yaThA sAlagrAmE vishNuH, pratimAdau

visNubuddhiH, sAlagrAmE hariH etc...Nowhere we can see the shivOpAsana or

dEvi upAsana in prasthAna trayi bhAshya...Perhaps, Sankara bhagavatpAda

himself being an incarnation of shiva bhagavan he might have not propagated

his own worship :-))

 

 

But I must say here, it is really very revolutionery thoughts from you

prabhuji which are, definitely out of boundaries/restrictions of tradtional

obligations,...By saying Ishvara is vishNu only nobody else, you have

unknowingly rejected the authorship of shankara on some works...Some famous

works like shivAnanda lahari, soudarya lahari, bhavAnyashtaka,

chandrashEkharAshTaka, shivAparAdhakshamApaNa stOtra etc. etc. which are

traditionally attributed to Sankara equates dEvi & shiva bhagavan to

Ishvara or parabrahman...So, based on prasthAna trayi bhAshya, we are

forced to say here these works are not from the original pen of Sankara

bhagavatpAda, who is the author of prasthAna trayi bhAshya...And again, by

saying he is NOT San matha sthApanAchArya, you are rejecting the claims of

mAdhavIya shankara vijaya..which even today considered to be the authentic

biography of shankara in dakshiNAmnaya traditional circle. What's your

thoughts on this I would like to hear...

 

 

I think it is not worth discussing these academic issues on this forum. I

know these are very sensitive issues which may hurt the sentiments of

prabhuji-s of this list.. ...If you dont mind kindly write to me off the

list...

 

 

 

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

Shri Sada ji and Shri Bhaskar ji,

Let me submit the following points for your evaluation.

 

`Militva evam Upadanam' – here both Maya and Brahman are jointly the

material cause for this Universe. The `per accidens' or the Tatastha

laksanas are the apparent projections of Nescience – Avidya which is

controlled by Iswara himself. The functional aspects of Avidya ie,

viksepa and avarana are operative only by Iswara. Maya as the

parinAmyupadana karana is subjected to transformation while Iswara

who controls his Maya naturally transcends transfigurations.

According to Advaita Vedanta Kutastha is regarded as the ultimate

reality. Iswara owes Kutastha for his satta. It is not that

Kutastha `lends' satta or that Iswara `borrows' it. The latter case

leads to anyonya asraya. Iswara is svayambhu. He is anAdi. Iswara is

MayopAdhi, which is termed `Saguna'. The term `guna' is PAribAshika

sabda as Sankara calls it. The term `guna' does not denote

qualities like colour form etc. These connotations are secondary.

Nor does the term intend any distinctions between constituents and

what is constituted. Guna is hence the avyakta Prakrti which is

nothing but Maya. Iswara is hence merely Maya sahitha – a sense more

than what `upadhi' suggests. Sankara often says `prakrti is karana

bhija to prapanca' while Iswara is its Niyanta. Niyantrtva

constitutes the two-fold power of Lord, Ksetra and ksetrajna

sakthis `Ksetra-ksetrajna prakrti dvaya saktimAn Iswara' says

Sankara. Iswara is Nitya mukta. As Iswara is the jagat Karana, the

Karana satta is certainly of higher magnitude of that of the Karya

(prapanca) which is axiomatic. Hence if Jagat as the Karya is laid

in the Vyavaharika satta, then Iswara logically assumes the

Paramartika satta. Even if Iswara and Jagat share a common plane of

Vyavaharika satta, the magnitude of satta of the former is certainly

different from that of the latter under the causal principles. Hence

Sarveswara acquires a special state of satta, while the satta of

Jagat is apparently lower. If Iswara's satta is regarded as

Vyavaharika then Jagat falls on a lower plane of satta ie, to

Pratibasika. But realizing `seemingly real' vyavaharika jagat as

pratibasika leads to Iswara aikya where jivatva is resolved and

Iswaratva is accomplished to transcend the Maya parinama, which

again demands to assign Paramartika Satta to Iswara. Sankaracarya

makes this point clear in his Mundaka bhasya that Iswara anugraha

and sayujya is mandatory for accomplishing the realization of the

true nature of one's own self.

 

All these points are implied with the implications of Arambana

Sruti's. Arambana Sruti's comprehensively speak about the fact that

Iswara is the vivarta of Kutastha, which is the upadana of this

Jagat. The process of vivarta is initiated by Iswara's pure will.

Kutastha is not the real 'cause' of Iswara, as we all know that

Kutastha does not hold the potential causality and also that Iswara

is anadi. Thus Iswara not as an `effect' acquires a satta neither

different nor non-dofferent from the Kutatha. With Sambhavana buddhi

we may thus reduce all these points to note that Iswara has

Paramartika satta while Kutastha Brahman has `kevala satta'. 'Kevala

satta' is essential nature of Brahman, which is attributeless. `sat

cit ananda'. Iswara satta is Paramartika satta, which surpasses the

vyavaharika, and the pratibasika satta. Sesa Samhitha, as Vidyaranya

quotes talks about Iswara as Turiya-atita, which is Paramartika and

Kutastha Brahman as Turiya-atita-antara which is `Kevala satta'.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Perhaps, Sankara bhagavatpAda

himself being an incarnation of shiva bhagavan he might have not

propagated

his own worship

__________________

 

Shri Bhaskar ji,

 

Very true that Sankara Bagavat pada himself is an incarnate of

Rudra. But Sankara is none but Narayana himself 'Rudranam

SankarascAsmi'. Sankara, Ahirbundya are some of the Sattvic aspects

of Rudra. Ahirbundya - the Sattvic aspect of Rudra initiated the

SadAgamas or the Pancaratra Agamas. Sankara another Sattvic aspect

of Rudra propunded Advaita Tattva which again established supremacy

of Visnu. Shiva himself, as the supreme abode of all pure knowledge

declares the Visnu tattva as Advitiya vastu in the Ahirbundya

samhitha which is purely Sattvic. Amalananda a well known Advaitin

in his commentary to Sutra Bashya clearly affirms that Pancaratra

Agama is purely in line with tenets of Advaita. Madhusudana

Sarasvati claims the same things in his Iswara pratipatthi prakasa.

Sridhara Swamin affirms this claim elaborately in his Bagavata

commentary.

 

There are many other Tamasic aspects of Rudra like Pinaki, Harana

who initiated other TantrAgamas which are Asadagamas of the kaula

marga. Asadagamas are a-Pramanas and are Veda vrddha. Veda Bahya

agamas like Saiva agamas are opposed to Advaitic tenets. Vaidikas do

not endorse those Tamasic agamas just because it is initiated by

Siva himself.

 

As far as Advaita is concerned Prasthana traya and few selective

granthas are the only pramanas for Vedanta Vicara. All these astakas

you have mentioned, that are ascribed to Sankaracarya are mere

arthavadas having no Pramanika. Prapanca Sara Tantra which is

commented upon by Padmapadacarya is one good example where Sankara

establishes the Nrsimha Upasana. Upadesa Sahasri nowhere mentions

any sakta saiva ideas in it. These prakaranas are Pramanika granthas

unlike the stotra patas.

 

Let me not go more into academic details and research on this issue.

As you rightly said, the issue is very sensitive and controversial

that some members will get agitated to the facts I claim.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

we may thus reduce all these points to note that Iswara has

Paramartika satta while Kutastha Brahman has `kevala satta'. 'Kevala

satta' is essential nature of Brahman, which is attributeless. `sat

cit ananda'. Iswara satta is Paramartika satta, which surpasses the

vyavaharika, and the pratibasika satta.

 

 

praNAms Sri Devanathan prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

prabhuji, kindly accept my humble praNAms & admirations to your vast

knowledge in advaita vEdAnta. My only request is whenever you say " this is

what shankara says " , kindly give the reference, so that without searching

for the exact statement in the commentary, I can straightaway hit the point

& understand the context. Hope you would consider my request.

 

 

I request you to give the references for these statements of shankara :

 

 

(a) Ksetra-ksetrajna prakrti dvaya saktimAn Iswara'

 

 

(b) 'Iswara iti - IswaraH IsanasIlaH NarayanaH sarvabhutAnam sarva prAninam

Hrdayadese

SuklAntaratma' iti.

 

 

© More, 'Ekam Eva Param Brahma' and that jnanam 'tacca jnanam evameva'

as Sankara puts it to say 'sa eva Bagavan VisnuH'.

 

 

Now, coming back to the discussion on the concept of Ishwara in advaita,

since you are also one of meticulous followers of prasthAna trayi bhAshya

of shankara (barring other prakaraNa-s as pramANa in siddhAnta nirNaya ) I

request you to quote bhAshya vAkya where shankara says Ishwara is

pAramArthika sataa & parabrahman is *kEvala satta*? and where it is said

that Ishvara tattva surpasses the vyAvahArika & prAtibhAsika satta?? If

the Ishwara is *mAya* sahita, how can we say mAya is not in the sphere of

avidyA here?? coz. Sankara repeatedly says mAya is avidyA kArya, avidyA

kalpita etc. If the Ishwara tattva (guNa) is pAramArtika satta (I dont

know what is the difference between pAramArtika & kEvala satta since this

is the first time I am hearing this distincition!) then we are forced to

accept the jIva who is in vyavahAra should have the guNa that is against

Ishvara tattva, coz. you are telling Ishwara satta is pAramArtika which

surpasses vyavahAra..So, there must be a difference between jIva satta &

Ishwara satta to keep them intact in different spheres right?? But

shankara in sUtra bhAshya (4-1-3) says the difference between jIva &

Ishvara *guNa bhEdha* is avidyAka..(viruddhaguNatAyA mithyAtva

upapateH)...Sankara substantiate his claim that parabrahman associated with

upAdhi-s styled as Ishwara in sUtra 1-1-12 wherein he clearly says that :

dvirUpaM hi brahma avagamyate nAmarUpavikArabhedOpAdhivishishtaM tad

viparItaM cha sarvOpAdhi vivarjitaM...Since upAdhi is avidyaka vyavahAra we

cannot conclude that IshvarOpAdhi or *mAya* sahita Ishvara has the

pAramArthika satyatva status (unless we have the clear distinction between

pAramArthika & kEvala satta)..Shankara makes it clear without any ambiguity

that Ishavara is the *conditioned* one by name and form set up by

avidyA...Thus the lordship of the lord, his omniscience and omnipotence are

only relative to the limitation caused by the conditioning of adjuncts of

the nature of avidyA....See ArabhaNAdhikaraNa sUtra bhAshya (2-1-14) for

further clarifications.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Devanathan prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Sankara another Sattvic aspect of Rudra propunded Advaita Tattva which

again established supremacy of Visnu.

 

 

> I am not able to understand this assertion...when we are talking about

*tattva* how can it be personified & concluded that it is ONLY narAyaNa &

NOT shiva?? prabhuji, do you have any specifics about vishNu tattva (as

against shiva tattva) when you are saying vishNu is superior to shiva ??

If you are telling SaMkha, chakra, gada padmadhAri, four handed vishNu is

superior to gajacharmAmbaradhara, trishUladhAri, kailAsavAsi shiva/rudra,

then it is nothing better than some bigoted versions of god supremacy of

dualists..Hope that will not be the case here.

 

 

Shiva himself, as the supreme abode of all pure knowledge declares the

Visnu tattva as Advitiya vastu in the Ahirbundya samhitha which is purely

Sattvic.

 

 

> which is this saMhita?? to which vEda does this saMhita belong to??

kindly clarify...Sri appayya deekshitaar, one of the famous shaivAdvaita

proponent has categorically denied vishNu's supremacy over shiva & clearly

shown even in bhAgavata, shiva is the main deity!!...what is your take on

that??

 

 

> Kindly dont think I am arguing here to prove shiva's supremacy over

vishNu..I am the last man to indulge in such type of meaningless arguments

:-)) But just curious to know how such a knowledgeable person like you can

hold such a limited vision/version of saguNa brahman in advaita vEdAnta

:-))

 

 

> I take your words in reply to this as final as far as your stand on

vishNu & shiva is concerned...No further mails on this subject from me.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

Pranams to the members who have participated in the discussions on the

subject " Brahman and Ishwara.

 

Respected Sirs,

The words Brahman, Ishwara and Atman point out to the same vastu as

is evident from the following Bhashya sentences.

Quote:

samAnaiva hi sarvEShu vEdAntEShu cEtanakAraNAvagatiH ||

[brahmasutra ;1-1-10]

 

AtmanaH kAraNatvaM darSayanti sarvE vEdAntaH ||

[brahmasutra: 1-1-10]

 

AtmA hi nAma svarUpam ||

 

[ Brahmasutra : 1-1-6 ]

 

ataH gatisAmAnyAt sarvaj~JaM brahma jagataH kAraNam ||

[brahmasutra; 1-1-10]

 

svaSabdEna ca sarvaj~Ja ISvarO jagataH kAraNam ||

[brahmasutra: 1-1-11]

Eka Eva tu paramAtmA ISvaraH. . . ||

{Brahmasutra: 1-1-11]

 

The conclusion from the excerpts is self-explanatory and self-evident.

 

The subject should read as " Brahman as ISvara " and

not as " Brahman and ISvara " if we have correctly understood Sri Shankara.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

The subject should read as " Brahman as ISvara " and

not as " Brahman and ISvara " if we have correctly understood Sri Shankara.

 

 

 

 

 

praNAms

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

There will be no problem whatsoever when we call the advaya tattva with

whatever name you want...nomenclature hardly matters when it comes to

pointing out nirguNa, nirviSesha parabrahman....Problem comes when

Ishwara/brahman is associated with upAdhi-s & taking it as ultimate

reality...To clear this wrong understanding of Ishvara tattva in advaita,

shankara makes it clear that the *socalled* Ishvara with upAdhi-s is

vyAvahArika satya & ultimately this Ishvara is nothing but nirguNa,

nirupAdhi, nirviSesha tattva...

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

From : H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

Dear Sri Bhaskar,

The concept that Brahman is associated with upAdhi is a

misconception born out of ignorance. Mundaka Upanishad declares:

" BrahmaivEdaM viSvamidam variShThaM || " . What is upAdhi itself?

It is Brahman/ Atman/ YOU appearing as upAdhi, is it not so? The

question of association arises only when Brahman is different from

upAdhi. But is it different from upAdhi Viz, Universe? Kindly refer to

the mantras 7-25-1 and 7-25-2 of Chandogya Upanishad and also to

mantra 2-5-19 of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad .

 

Sri Sureshwara states in Naishkarmyasiddhi : " ahaM sarvadA

anAtmavarjitaH(2-117); na dRuSErdvitayOgaH asti (2-43);

na tAvadyOga Eva asti SarIrENAtmanaH sadA (1-95) " . What do these

statements convey?

 

Since the goal of a mumukshu is to realize " satyasya satyam " ,he has

to cognize the above stated facts within oneself and put an end to all

confusions/doubts. That is the clarion call of the Sages.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy