Ishvara

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

I think that many Advaitins see Ishvara or Saguna Brahman as a lower form of

Nirguna Brahman. However I have also read the opinion in a book on Advaita that

'Brahman and Isvara (God) are not two distinct things, but the same thing

conceived from two different standpoints.' Is it possible that this could be

Shankara's view? In Shankara's view is Ishvara an upadhi / form of Brahman just

like all the other forms or is it possible that Isvara is not an upadhi but

Brahman itself? Is Isvara just another deity or somehow different to other

deities?

 

Also, does having upadhis mean that an entity is subject to dissolution? I

thought that in the Advaitin view having a form meant being subject to

dissolution ie that only that which is beyond form is eternal. However at the

very end of his commentary on Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Shankara says about the

deity Brahma 'This self-born Brahma is without beginning and eternal'. Does this

mean that according to Shankara the deity Brahma is eternally manifested by

Brahman and that despite having upadhis, exists eternally as an individual form

and never merges into Brahman like a river into the sea?

 

thank you

 

Ju

[Guest guest]

PranAms,

There are many posts in the archives which have dealt with this topic.

 

For one perspective on this you can visit:

 

http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/04/ishwara-and-brahman.html

Hari OM

Shyam

--- On Sun, 3/8/09, ju_r1 <ju_r1 wrote:

ju_r1 <ju_r1 Ishvaraadvaitin Date: Sunday, March 8, 2009, 2:56 PM

 

 

Dear all,I think that many Advaitins see Ishvara or Saguna Brahman as a lower form of Nirguna Brahman. However I have also read the opinion in a book on Advaita that 'Brahman and Isvara (God) are not two distinct things, but the same thing conceived from two different standpoints. ' Is it possible that this could be Shankara's view? In Shankara's view is Ishvara an upadhi / form of Brahman just like all the other forms or is it possible that Isvara is not an upadhi but Brahman itself? Is Isvara just another deity or somehow different to other deities? Also, does having upadhis mean that an entity is subject to dissolution? I thought that in the Advaitin view having a form meant being subject to dissolution ie that only that which is beyond form is eternal. However at the very end of his commentary on Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Shankara says about the deity Brahma 'This self-born Brahma is without beginning and eternal'. Does this mean

that according to Shankara the deity Brahma is eternally manifested by Brahman and that despite having upadhis, exists eternally as an individual form and never merges into Brahman like a river into the sea?thank youJu

[Guest guest]

Thank you to Shyam for this link. I think that in one Advaitin view, Ishvara is

a manifestation of Brahman in the same way that all other phenomena are a

manifestation of Brahman, although Ishvara is perhaps the 'highest'

manifestation of Brahman. That which is manifested is inferior to that which

does the manifesting.

 

Am I correct that in the understanding of Ishvara in Shyam's link, Ishvara is

not a manifestation of Brahman (like the phenomenal world, deities etc) but is

Brahman itself ie that which does the manifesting?

 

If so, does this mean that in this view Ishvara does not have upadhis?

 

 

thanks

 

Ju

 

 

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> PranAms,

> There are many posts in the archives which have dealt with this topic.

>  

> For one perspective on this you can visit:

>  

> http://poornamadam.blogspot.com/2008/04/ishwara-and-brahman.html

>

> Hari OM

> Shyam

>

> --- On Sun, 3/8/09, ju_r1 <ju_r1 wrote:

>

>

> ju_r1 <ju_r1

> Ishvara

> advaitin

> Sunday, March 8, 2009, 2:56 PM

Dear all,

>

> I think that many Advaitins see Ishvara or Saguna Brahman as a lower form of

Nirguna Brahman. However I have also read the opinion in a book on Advaita that

'Brahman and Isvara (God) are not two distinct things, but the same thing

conceived from two different standpoints. ' Is it possible that this could be

Shankara's view? In Shankara's view is Ishvara an upadhi / form of Brahman just

like all the other forms or is it possible that Isvara is not an upadhi but

Brahman itself? Is Isvara just another deity or somehow different to other

deities?

>

> Also, does having upadhis mean that an entity is subject to dissolution? I

thought that in the Advaitin view having a form meant being subject to

dissolution ie that only that which is beyond form is eternal. However at the

very end of his commentary on Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Shankara says about the

deity Brahma 'This self-born Brahma is without beginning and eternal'. Does this

mean that according to Shankara the deity Brahma is eternally manifested by

Brahman and that despite having upadhis, exists eternally as an individual form

and never merges into Brahman like a river into the sea?

>

> thank you

>

> Ju

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

I have noticed that you have been posting " one-word " questions that focus on

Advaita terminology. Honestly speaking, it is almost impossible to grasp the

essence of Sankara's advaita by knowing just the definitions. There are plenty

of materials on the 'terms " used in advaita philosophy are readily available

through the Google search but all that you will get will likely be just bits and

pieces. Any answer that you may get will only produce more questions and that is

not surprising. I would suggest you also to go over the advaitin list archive

and use the search engine with " key word of your interest. " You will get a

series of messages containing the key word. This is one quick way to assemble

all the releventa materials and sort out those that are of interest to you.

 

The ideal starting point is to go through the text of Bhagavad Gita chapters and

look for all the key terms that are associated in Gita. The subject matter of

" Isvara " has been discussed in greater details starting from chapters 7 to 12.

Specifically you can get substantial insights on the question related to the

manifestation through verses 4 and 5 of chapter 9. We had a lengthy discussion

(Satsangh) on Gita Chapter 9 starting from October 2002 and I suggest that you

take a look.

 

 

Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam (in his Gita Homestudy notes)

provides a well articulated description of Isvara as follows:

 

This description specifically focuses on Gita Chapter 7 Verse 12

 

ye caiva sattvika bhava rajasastamasasca ye

matta eveti tanviddhi na tvaham tesu te mayi

 

ye ca — and those;

eva — indeed;

sattvikah — born of sattva; bhavah —

beings and things;

ye ca — and those;

rajasah — born of rajas; (ca —and;)

tamasah — born of tamas; tan — them; mattah eva — from Me

alone; iti — thus; viddhi — may you know; te mayi — they are in Me;

tu — but; na aham — I am not; tesu — in them

 

And those beings and things which are indeed born of sattva, rajas, and tamas,

may you know them to be born from Me alone. They are in Me but I am not in them.

Ye ca eva sattvikah bhavah — those things which are born purely of sattva.

Desires which are sattvika in nature, like a desire to know, are born of sattva.

If the antah-karana consists of three qualities, sattva, rajas and tamas, sattva

accounts for anything noble, anything in keeping with dharma. Even experiences

like happiness, sukha, and tranquillity, santi, are born of sattva. Right

attitudes, devotion, prayer, are all sattvikah bhavah. Then those things which

are born of rajas like ambition, dislike, anger and so on, are all rajasa. And

those things, which are tamasa in nature are born of tamas. Or we can take it

this way. Ye bhavah can mean those living beings, and sattvikas, can mean those

who are born

of sattva, like the devatas. In this case it would mean predominantly sattva.

And all the raksasas and so on are born of predominantly rajas. Similarly,

tamasas can mean those who are born of predominantly tamas, such as the animals.

Then we have the human beings who are sattva, rajas, and tamas put together.

 

This accounts for all types of beings. Or we can take `ye bhavah' as those

people who are predominantly sattvika, or rajasa or tamasa. Such people, all

these various beings are all born out of their own karma. That being so, they

are all born of Me because the very karma is Me, the law of karma itself is Me.

And further, the cause for everything is Me; so, nothing is separate from Me. To

be born you require a physical body and for that you require all five gross

elements. These are all Me. And you require subtle elements because without the

subtle elements there would be no subtle body nor would there be any gross

elements. And the subtle elements are also born of Isvara. Therefore, there is

nothing that is away from Me. To be born with a given body, all these

ingredients are required. All of them are Me. I provide the upadana, I am the

material for all of them. So,

according to one's own karma, whatever form one takes, whether it is a tamasa or

a sattvika form, that form is non-separate from Me. Even though they are born of

Me, na tu aham tesu — I, however, am not in them. This means I am not under

their control, I don't depend upon them. Since they are born of Me, I do not

depend upon their existence. This is similar to how the existence of the clay

does not depend on the existence of pot. But they are in Me — all of them,

sattvika, rajasa, tamasa, all depend entirely upon Me, upon My laws.

 

According to My laws they are born and the laws are Me. And everything is Me,

so, to exist they entirely depend upon Me. To

breathe they require air which is Me; they require water which is Me; they

require fire which is Me; they require earth, food that is Me. They all depend

entirely upon Me. But I am not in them. Here Sankara gives an introduction to

the next verse. Even though this is how it is, even though I am the taste in

water, I am the strength in the strong, I am the desire itself, I am the one

from whom all of the sattvika, rajasa and tamasa are born and even though

nothing is separate from Me; even then, the world of people does not recognise

Me, Paramesvara. Who is that Paramesvara? Sankara tells here that he is parama

as well as Isvara. Parama indicates the svarupa of Isvara. Whenever we use the

word Paramesvara, it covers both the svarupa of the Lord as well as his status

of being sarva- karana, the cause of everything. Why do we say sarva-karana? In

the world we draw a line and delineate different causes. Physical bodies are

born of the physical elements. Therefore, the physical elements are the cause

for the physical bodies. Then, the physical elements themselves are products of

the subtle elements and so, the subtle elements become the causes. In this way,

we can keep on tracing the cause. From the standpoint of a product we can trace

the cause

elsewhere, and that cause again is a product for which the karana, cause is

elsewhere. Since there are many karanas in this world we have to use the word

sarva-karana for the cause of all. Sarva-karana is called Isvara.

 

=========================================

 

Essentially through this verse the Lord says that He is the material cause but

the 'material' is not Him. Atman is real, the body, mind and intellect are

unreal and only Atman is responsible for the recognition of the existence (non

existence) of body, mind and intellect! Body, mind and intellect are not

responsible for the existence of Atman!

 

Finally we should recognize that Isvara is manifested by our mind as the

reflecting Brahman. We couldn't perceive the Nirguna Brahman without a name and

a form and Isvara is our own conceptualization of the Brahman. As long as we

keep ourselves separate from the Brahman, we likely view (ourselves and) the

Isvara as inferior to the Brahman!

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " ju_r1 " <ju_r1 wrote:

>

> Thank you to Shyam for this link. I think that in one Advaitin view, Ishvara

is a manifestation of Brahman in the same way that all other phenomena are a

manifestation of Brahman, although Ishvara is perhaps the 'highest'

manifestation of Brahman. That which is manifested is inferior to that which

does the manifesting.

>

[Guest guest]

The concept of Ishwara is explained quite well in Surya Gita. You can try referring to verse numbers 1-24 of chapter 4 on this linkhttp://surya-gita.blogspot.com/Also see verses 19-20 of chapter 1.regards--- On Mon, 9/3/09, ju_r1 <ju_r1 wrote:ju_r1 <ju_r1 Ishvaraadvaitin Date: Monday, 9 March, 2009, 12:26 AM

 

Dear all,

 

I think that many Advaitins see Ishvara or Saguna Brahman as a lower form of Nirguna Brahman. However I have also read the opinion in a book on Advaita that 'Brahman and Isvara (God) are not two distinct things, but the same thing conceived from two different standpoints. ' Is it possible that this could be Shankara's view? In Shankara's view is Ishvara an upadhi / form of Brahman just like all the other forms or is it possible that Isvara is not an upadhi but Brahman itself? Is Isvara just another deity or somehow different to other deities?

 

Also, does having upadhis mean that an entity is subject to dissolution? I thought that in the Advaitin view having a form meant being subject to dissolution ie that only that which is beyond form is eternal. However at the very end of his commentary on Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Shankara says about the deity Brahma 'This self-born Brahma is without beginning and eternal'. Does this mean that according to Shankara the deity Brahma is eternally manifested by Brahman and that despite having upadhis, exists eternally as an individual form and never merges into Brahman like a river into the sea?

 

thank you

 

Ju

 

 

 

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.