Isvara/Brahman etc

[Guest guest]

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

 

advaitin , " risrajlam " <rishi.lamichhane

wrote:

>

> Dear Putranji,

>

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

for

> two different reasons in the scriptures.

>

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

> upasana one attains antahkarana-shuddhi. An understanding of

Ishvara

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

> understanding of Ishvara is important for antahkarana-shuddhi.

Neither

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

>

 

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

there except as a tool for our spiritual path.

 

 

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

the

> individual, the world and the Lord.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

encompassing sense and His Grace capable of breaking the bonds of

karma....

 

>

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

> material cause)

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

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

is

> not really jagat-karana

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

>

 

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

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

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

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

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

illusion's standpoint, the question remains whether Ishvara is

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

 

You are presenting only the subjective standpoint of the jiva and

avoiding any tendency to objectify the experience into a Locus as

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

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

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

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

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

Ishvara the sole Individual.

 

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

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

scripture, so resort to logic and opinion.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu