brahman and Ishvara

May 8, 2008

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?

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.

praNAms Sri Srinivasa prabhuji

Hare Krishna

what is satyasya satyaM when everything is satyaM/brahman only?? this is

the mischievous question appeared in my mind after looking at your counter

question *what is upAdhi*?? What you said i.e. *everything is brahman* is

the ultimate reality of Atman/brahman since in advaita there is no second

entity that can be labelled as *anAtma*...But dont you think at the level

of *mumukshu*, who is still trying to *see* satyasya satyaM of Atman,

required to have various methodologies to arrive at that truth?? If

shankara started his siddhAnta by saying *everything is brahman*, there was

absolutely no need for him to wrote adhyAsa bhAshya (where is adhyAsa, when

avidyA itself is categorized as brahman??), what was the need for him to

write elaborate commentaries on adhyArOpa - apavAda?? what is the need for

him for a detailed analysation of avasthA traya prakriya when this

world/upAdhi has the existence & reality on par with nirvikAri

parabrahman?? what is the need for paNcha kOsha vivEka?? what was the

intention of shankara when he said brahman is sarvEndriya vivarjita &

Ishvara has avidyOpAdhi?? what was the need for elaborated discussion on

para & apara brahman in bhAshya-s?? what was the intention of shruti when

it is declaring advaita tattva is prapanchOpashamanaM, shivam shAntaM &

advaitaM?? Dont you think these prakriya-s/declarations are serving a

definite purpose in shankara siddhAnta?? prabhuji, IMHO, instead of always

talking from a high pedestal of a jnAni, it is better to understand the

prakriya at the mumukshu level & try to sort out the issues at that level

only....Dont you think this is an appropriate request from a mumukshu like

me prabhuji??

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

May 8, 2008

From : H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

what is satyasya satyaM when everything is satyaM/brahman only??

Dear Sri Bhaskar,

Your reply needs lot of study by me and hence the replies will

have to be given in instalments only . To start with I will answer the

question " " What is satyasya satyam? " .

Here is the relevant mantra 2-3-6 from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

which reads as follows :

athAta AdESO nEtinEti na hyEtasmAditi nEtyanyatparamastyatha

nAmadhEyagM satyasya satyamiti prANA vai satyaM tEShAmESha satyam ||

Translation: Now, therefore, the description of Brahman: " Not this,

not this " (Neti, Neti); for there is no other and more appropriate

description than this " Not this. " Now the designation of Brahman: " The

Truth of truth. " The vital breath is truth and It (Brahman) is the

Truth of that.

I request you to study the complete commentary of Sri Shankara

to that mantra translated into Kannada by HH Holenarasipur Swamiji

because it contains valuable foot-notes which are of immense help to

understand the commentary. You will then clearly know the reason why I

used the words " satyasya satyam " .

Further replies will follow shortly. May I request you kindly to

study the mantras , which I had mentioned in my previous posting on

the subject, with the commentary.

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

May 8, 2008

Hari OM~

Pranams Shri Bhaskar ji,

Visistam SuddhAt nAtiricyate – Both Iswara and Brahman are non-

different in holding equal satta; in considering the eternal

existence interms of causality in material and efficient senses.

Iswara is not the transfiguration of Kutastha and former cannot be

transfigured. The very event of transfiguration is under Iswara's

control. Kutastha in association with Maya is figuratively called

Isvara who controls Nescience as his power to project the world,

which is the epi-phenomena of the former (Maya). Sankara regards

Maya as the consort of Iswara as he says `Devi Devasya Isvarasya

VisnoH svabhAvabhutaH hi yasmAt esa yatOktha gunamayI mama Mayi' iti

BG 7.14. The grade of reality – satta of Iswara is hence higher than

that of the epi-phenomenal or the phenomenal world. Gradations of

satta interms of SattAbAsaas are determined only with respect to the

Kutatha Caitanya by the technique Bhade-Samanadhikaranyam. Kutastha

satta is Nirdharmaka, which is the underlying existence of all

planes of `cognizable' states of existence. Both Iswara and Jiva are

CidAbAsas of Kutastha while the difference between the both lies in

relation with the adjuncts (conditional). Adjunts are classified

into two according to Advaita Vedanta. They are Ksara-Upadhi and

Aksara upadhi. Sankara highlights this in BG 15.17 where he

says `Ksara-aksara upAdhi dvaya' iti. Correspondigly, Upadhi

sambandaH is broadly understood in two ways vide 1) Upadhi -

upahitha sambandaH 2) Upadhi - Avacinna sambandaH. Iswara's

relation to Upadhi goes with the relation 1 ie, Upadhyupahitha

sambandaH while Jiva holds the Upadhyavacinna sambandaH. Upahitha

sambandaH is a superficial relation where the adjunct does not

influence that which is involved in that relation. So to say, Iswara

actually is not `conditioned' by the adjuncts since the latter

operates under the formers control. Sankara in BG 15.17 emphatically

marks `Upadhi dvaya dosena asprstaH Nitya suddha Buddha muktha

svabhAvaH saH ParamAtma paramasca asau deha-avidya-krta-atmabhyah,

saH svarUpa `sat' bhavamAtrena avyayaH iti | - the supreme atman is

pure, intellect, eternal, omniscient who is not influenced nor is

infected by the `conditions' of adjuncts which are two fold,

(perishable and imperishable). Who is that Supreme atman? Sankara

says `saH IswaraH sarvajna NarayanAkyaH iti. Sankara adds to state

that such a satta is ParamArtika - `Sa param devam Narayanam

atmatvena.. ParamArta darsinam nitya muktAnAm iti | Iswara in

Sankara's view is a transcendental phenomenon while the phenomenal

world is immanent. BG 10.3 Bashyam where Sankara describes Iswara as

Paramartika Vastu saying `Loka maheswaram Lokanam mahAntam Iswaram

TurIyam ajnAna-tat-kArya varjitam' – Iswara is one who is beyond the

manifestations of Nescience since he is Turiya. Turiya as we know is

transcendental Being, which transcends the apparent products of

Nescience. Manifestations of Nescience is empirical in its

transaction ie, Vyavaharika. Iswara as Turiya vastu is transcends

these transactional planes of existence and thus assumes the

Paramartika status. Iswara just because he is jagat karana is

wrongly dragged into the Vyavahara satta. But in reality Iswara as

Jagat Karana stands in ParamArtika plane of existence which Sankara

points out clearly in BG 7.(6.1) Bhasya, `Para-apare Ksetra kstrajna

laksane prakrti dvaya dvArena aham Sarvajna Iswara jagat karanam

iti' – Iswara is the cause for both mediate and immediate marks of

prakrti in its manifested and unmanifested forms. Sankara defines

prakrti laksana as `sthithi nAsa kriya phala boga laksanam' iti BG

10.8. Iswara one who animates these laksanas is the ultimate Being

as Sankara describes him as `Param Brahma VasudevAkyam sarvasya

sarvagataH `sthithi nAsa laya bhoga laksanam vikriya Rupam avagatha

ParmArta Tattvam; paramArtha tattva abhinivesaH ityartaH iti' Iswara

is hence the Paramartika tattva – a higher place of existence which

alone surpasses the other transactions at the apparent and empirical

states of existence. Thus Sankara clearly marks the distinct feature

with which Iswara is identified as the Being of Paramartika satta,

where the adjuncts involed are not samanya upadhis but the visista

upAdhis `Iswarasya NarayanAkyasya vibhuti samksepaH VisistopAdhi

krta' iti BG 16.0 like that of the `excellence of Aditya' –

`YadhAdityagatam TejaH'. Adjunct to Iswara is like the brilliance

of Sun unlike the obscuring effect on Jiva. As apoken in the Mundaka

and Paingi Upanishads, which Sankara copiously quotes, `the

expression `Dva Suparna' – the two bird analogy where one is

regarded as individual soul and the other as Supreme Soul. Jivatman

is known to be in association with that of the `limiting' adjuncts

like space within pot – the soul that exists within each body

separately while Isvara is cognized in all bodies without any

difference is free from any `limitations' even in the presense of

the same adjuncts. This is substantive mark of difference that

distinctively assigns the unique satta to Iswara which Sankara

conveys it to be the `vinodha laksanani' iti – vailaksanyavat.

Sankara here adds the view here that the empirical kartrtva Sesitva

and Niyatrtva are commonly ascribed to Iswara and Jiva in the

PrAkrta satta (Vyavaharika) while in reality such notions are not

conducive to Iswaratva which is AprAkrta – `Kartrtva bhoktrtva ca

prati Sariram BudhyupAdhi sambando LokaH eva PrasiddhaH.. Iswarastu

Lokato-aprasiddhatva Srutya iti Tatparyam' says Sankara in Sutra

Bhasyam I.iii.8. Such an AprAkrta Satta is certainly ParamArtika.

Kutastha Satta is `SattamAtra' which is Nirvisesa. SattamAtra of

Kutastha otherwise known as `Kevala Satta' is not different from the

ParamArtika Satta of Iswara, which Sankara reveals in BG 12.27 where

he says `Parameswaram sarva bhutesu samam tistan;

Parameswaram `avinAsyantam'; Sarva BhutaiH (vinodha) Vailaksanyam

atyantameva; Parameswarasya Siddham Nirvisesatvam Ekatvam ca' –

Iswara is content of Nirvisesa ekatva dharma while the very content

by itself is Nirdharmaka. Is it logically possible that Nirvisesa

ekatvam and the Savisesatva nAnatvam rest in the same Iswaratva?

Sankara in Sutra Bhasya II.ii.21 answers this to say `Yes, such is

authentically possible as such a mark is made to persist in Highest

level of Iswara that is the – `naca SallaksanamevaBrahma naBodha

laksana miti sakyam vaktum.. nApi bodhalaksanameva Brahma na

sallaksanamiti sakyam' - this amounts to say that both

the `cognizable ParamArtika satta and the one devoid of Vrtti'

denotes Kutastha satta which penetrates all states of existence

which one which is not restricted to any particular existence like

Paramartika, Vyavaharika or Pratibasika. Iswara has to be placed

only in ParamArtika satta since according to Advaita Vedanta

Savisesa Iswara Upasana leads to Krama Mukti. The very concept of

Mukti is transference of Self from one state of existence from

another state without undergoing transfigurations. In this case, the

Upasaka who initially begins his sadana in Vyavaharika plane on

realizing `Iswara Sayujya' is said to have attained Mukti which

obviously reveals Paramartika satta to Iswara. Only when we accept

Paramartika we will justify the scope for liberation. Sama-satta

prApti at any rate cannot justify the concept of Mukti at all. Hence

Iswara sayujya as Sankara refers `Vaisnavam Paramam padam' in Sutra

Bhasya I.iv.4 & IV.iii.11 where the `paratva' suggests the

ParamArtika Satta to Iswara.

With Narayana Smrti,

Devanathan.J

May 8, 2008

Hari OM~

Shri Bhaskar ji,

(a) Ksetra-ksetrajna prakrti dvaya saktimAn Iswara' - BG Bhasya

Chapter XIII for sure (will give you the exact sloka ref later)

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

prAninam

Hrdayadese

SuklAntaratma' iti. BG Bhasya 18.61

evameva'

as Sankara puts it to say 'sa eva Bagavan VisnuH'. BG Bhasya IX.15

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

May 9, 2008

praNAms Sri Srinivasa Murthy prabhuji

Hare Krishna

SM prabhuji :

Your reply needs lot of study by me and hence the replies will

have to be given in instalments only . To start with I will answer the

question " " What is satyasya satyam? " .

bhaskar :

Oh!! thanks for taking trouble to write this to me prabhuji...But as I said

that was a mischievous question arised after seeing your question what is

upAdhi when everything is brahman:-)) Anyway thanks onceagain for your

effort.

SM prabhuji :

Here is the relevant mantra 2-3-6 from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

which reads as follows :

athAta AdESO nEtinEti na hyEtasmAditi nEtyanyatparamastyatha

nAmadhEyagM satyasya satyamiti prANA vai satyaM tEShAmESha satyam ||

Translation: Now, therefore, the description of Brahman: " Not this,

not this " (Neti, Neti); for there is no other and more appropriate

description than this " Not this. " Now the designation of Brahman: " The

Truth of truth. " The vital breath is truth and It (Brahman) is the Truth of

that. I request you to study the complete commentary of Sri Shankara

to that mantra translated into Kannada by HH Holenarasipur Swamiji

because it contains valuable foot-notes which are of immense help to

understand the commentary. You will then clearly know the reason why I

used the words " satyasya satyam " .

bhaskar :

I am very much aware of this quote (infact, this is a favourite quote for

those who want to know *brahman* through negation :-)) and had a detailed

discussion with my guruji by parallely holding other upanishad quotes such

as sarvaM khalvidaM brahma, pUrNamadaM, pUrNamidaM, brahmaivEdam sarvaM

etc..It was really a vivacious discussion with my guruji & I was really

excited to hear views of my guruji how this *nEti, nEti* can be reconciled

with *sarvaM khalu idaM brahma* without diluting the rigorous of advaita's

nirvishEsha tattva of parabrahman. Anyway, that is a different matter.

Now coming back to the point, even if you see the above bruhadAraNyaka

quote, I think it would substantiate the claim that initial approach

towards shankara vEdAnta cannot be *sarvaM brahma* but negation of *anAtma

vastu* because shruti itself saying here *nEti nEti* is the highest

teaching to describe Atma tattva...If the approach is (always) all

embracing, shruti/shankara would not have recommended nEti nEti

mArga...Elsewhere shruti says, na tatra chankshurgachhati, na vAggachati nO

manaH..yatO vAchO nivartante aprapya manasa saha etc..Had it been the case

of sarvaM brahma approach, shruti would not have taken trouble to negate

the anAtma vastu is it not?? Shankara in gItA 18-50 says, sarvatra hi

buddhyAdi dehAnte Atmachaitanya AbhAsatA, AtmabhrAnti kAraNaM*...why he has

to emphasize this point when this upAdhi, jagat etc. etc. is brahman

itself?? Dont you think this prakriya (methodology) of negation is

something different from *sarvaM brahma* approach?? Kindly see shankara

bhAshya on Itareya upanishad II chapter, before starting his commentary on

this chapter, shankara says : asti-nAsti, ekaM-nAnA, guNavad-aguNaM,

jAnAti-na jAnAti, .....paraH, ahaM, anyaH iti vA *sarvavAkpratyayagOchare

svarUpe yO vikalpayitum icchati shankara says he is like an insane

man...coz. shankara concludes shruti itself expressing its inability to

define the tattva by saying : kO addhA vEda???? So, I believe negation of

anAtma vastu is the best method to start the process prabhuji :-))

SM prabhuji :

Further replies will follow shortly. May I request you kindly to

study the mantras , which I had mentioned in my previous posting on

the subject, with the commentary.

bhaskar :

Thanks for your kind suggestion prabhuji.Definitely I shall look into it.

In the meantime, may I also request your kindself to study in detail our

parama guruji-s works, paramArtha chitAmaNi, avasthAtraya chandrika,

gaudapAda hrudaya, shankara mahA manana prabhuji wherein Sri SSS

comprehensively deals with these issues.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

May 9, 2008

Humble praNAms Sri Devanathan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Thanks a lot for spending your precious time with me in discussing this

matter. I am afraid there is some confusion between your view of vyavahAra

& *vyavahAra* that I have in my mind:-)). Let me clarify what *vyavahAra*

does mean to me:-)) vyavahAra according to me, not only thoughts, resultant

expressions but also jIva-s conduct based upon them. If I see snake in

place of rope & scared by it, then it is mithyA vyavahAra (wrong

behaviour), but when I see the rope in place of rope then it is

samyagvyavahAra (right behaviour). But from the vEdAntic absolute point of

view, all our ideas, speech & conduct based upon practical life

(vyAvahArik) are really due to ignorance only i.e. including seeing rope as

rope...Because in all these situations, the wrong distinction of knower and

the known is invariably maintained. Here in the jIva-Ishwara saMbandha

also, irrespective of jIva & his realization of Ishvara in the krama mukti

process, the jIva maintains the distance between him/herself & Ishvara & it

calls for further non-dual realization ..So paramArthika satta what you are

referring is also a type of vyavahAra where pramAtru-pramEya distinction

being maintained between jIva & Ishvara...So, IMHO, Ishwara his

vishishTOpAdhi, jIva and his parichinna upAdhi etc. etc. in the sphere of

duality only where there is an influence of duality. In this sense, I've

been using the terminology of vyavahAra...It is not only restricted to

jIva-s vyavahAra (with his bhautika sharIra) in this jagat but also his

travel to some celestial abodes & its respepctive realizations etc.. So,

my vyavahAra has the broader base that is including all sciences, all

karma-s, all upAsana-s, the relatioships like

mother-father-son-teached-student etc., bondage-release (bandha-mOksha),

bhakta-bhagavAn, shAstra/vEda & what not :-)) Hence shankara categorizes

all vyavahAra (including bandha-mOksha) based on duality as avidyatmaka.

But on the other hand paramArtha (what I have in my mind) is not like this,

it is ekarUpENa hi avasthitO yOrthaH sa paramArthaH (sUtra bhAshya 2-1-11).

That which is not subject to change, where there is absolutely no trace of

distinctions between pramAtru-pramEya or jnAtru-jnEya or jIva-bhagavanta

(nEha nAnasti kiMchana), where there is even vEda-s are not vEda-s (atra

vEda avEda) where there is god is not god ( dEva adEva) that absolute

non-dual state is paramArtha & nothing else (atleast for me :-))

So prabhuji, it is my humble opinion that whatever you say about

IshwarAstitva with upAdhi (let that be aprAkrutik vishshTOpAdhi ) it is

still very much in the sphere of vyavahAra only & it is avidyAkruta.

Kindly bear with my fussy nature...I am open for correction.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

May 9, 2008

Respected Devanathan-ji

SAshtAng pranAms.

This was less a post - more a thesis.

Simply breathtaking!

The manner in which you methodically developed the

subject matter, the lucidity, the depth, breadth and

scope, and most importantly the clarity were truly

mind-blowing.

My humble namaskArams to you, and to your learning and

scholarship, as well as to your Guru and parampara.

The thing that stood out most for me, was the layers

and layers of knowledge that our dear BhagavatpAda has

so meticulously, so laboriously, outlined for us to

help us complete our understanding of VedAntA, so the

whole picture may slowly but clearly unfold in order

that we gain the vision of the Whole.

Hari OM

Shyam

--- antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote:

> Hari OM~

> Pranams Shri Bhaskar ji,

> – Both Iswara and

> Brahman are non-

> different in holding equal satta; in considering the

> eternal

> existence interms of causality in material and

> efficient senses.

> Iswara is not the transfiguration of Kutastha and

> former cannot be

> transfigured. The very event of transfiguration is

> under Iswara's

> control. Kutastha in association with Maya is

> figuratively called

> Isvara who controls Nescience as his power to

> project the world,

> which is the epi-phenomena of the former (Maya).

> Sankara regards

> Maya as the consort of Iswara as he says `Devi

> Devasya Isvarasya

> VisnoH svabhAvabhutaH hi yasmAt esa yatOktha

> gunamayI mama Mayi' iti

> BG 7.14.\

> Iswara is content of Nirvisesa ekatva dharma while

> the very content

> by itself is Nirdharmaka. Is it logically possible

> that Nirvisesa

> ekatvam and the Savisesatva nAnatvam rest in the

> same Iswaratva?

> Sankara in Sutra Bhasya II.ii.21 answers this to say

> `Yes, such is

> authentically possible as such a mark is made to

> persist in Highest

> level of Iswara that is the

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

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

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

May 15, 2008

advaitin , " antharyami_in " <sathvatha

wrote:

>

Iswara has to be placed

> only in ParamArtika satta since according to Advaita Vedanta

> Savisesa Iswara Upasana leads to Krama Mukti. The very concept of

> Mukti is transference of Self from one state of existence from

> another state without undergoing transfigurations. In this case,

the

> Upasaka who initially begins his sadana in Vyavaharika plane on

> realizing `Iswara Sayujya' is said to have attained Mukti which

> obviously reveals Paramartika satta to Iswara. Only when we accept

> Paramartika we will justify the scope for liberation. Sama-satta

> prApti at any rate cannot justify the concept of Mukti at all.

Hence

> Iswara sayujya as Sankara refers `Vaisnavam Paramam padam' in Sutra

> Bhasya I.iv.4 & IV.iii.11 where the `paratva' suggests the

> ParamArtika Satta to Iswara.

> With Narayana Smrti,

> Devanathan.J

Namaste Devanathan-ji,

I join Shyamji (Message #40587) in appreciating your above post

#40576 as a thesis, not just a post! Marvellous! May God bless you

with long life in the service of jijnAsus of advaita vedAnta!

Now I have a request for you. In B.G.XV-16, Acharya Shankara in his

Bhashya says: " akshharaH tadviparItaH bhagavato mAyAshaktiH " .

Nowhere else in advaita literature (as far as I know) there seems to

be a characterisation of akshhara-purushha as mAyAshakti. This has

always been one of the thorns in my understanding. Can you build

this up also in your above-mentioned thesis where you have very

logically led us up to accepting pAramArthika sattA for Ishvara?

Thank you.

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

May 15, 2008

>

> advaitin , " antharyami_in " <sathvatha@>

> wrote:

> >

> Iswara has to be placed

> > only in ParamArtika satta since according to Advaita Vedanta

> > Savisesa Iswara Upasana leads to Krama Mukti.

> > With Narayana Smrti,

> > Devanathan.J

Dear Shri Devanathan

nirguNa brahman alone is paramArtha satyam. Ishvara is saguNa

brahman. As you know, there are various theories about the nature of

jIva and Ishvara. In all these theories one common factor is that

Ishvara is brahman associated with triguNAtmikA mAyA in some way or

other. The following are extracts relating to the nature of Ishvara

from my English translation of Siddhantabindu of Madhusudana

Sarasvati, which has been posted on my website.

Para 45. `mAyA creates jIva and Ishvara by reflection (of Brahman)

in itself' (Nrsimhottaratapini Up. 9),

Para 72. The view of the author of Vivarana is that pure

consciousness limited by nescience is Ishvara and is the original

which is reflected.

Para 73. The view of the author of Samkshepasariraka is that pure

consciousness reflected in nescience is Ishvara. Pure consciousness

reflected in the intellect is the jIva. Pure consciousness not

limited by nescience, which is the original is pure (Brahman).

Para 75. According to Vachaspatimisra, pure consciousness which is

the content (object) of nescience is Ishvara. Ishvara is

metaphorically described as the cause of the universe because of

being the substratum of the jIvas, nescience and the universe. This

is the limitation theory.

Para 79. The scriptures have as their main purport the nature of

the non-dual self, because that is what is fruitful and not known.

The concepts of distinctions such as jIva, Ishvara, etc., which are

only creations of the human mind, are merely repeated by the

scriptures, because they are useful for knowing the Reality.

Para 134. Of these two, the seer is the Self, the reality, one

only, and though always the same, it is threefold because of

difference caused by limiting adjuncts. These are Ishvara, jIva and

the witness. Ishvara has nescience which is the cause (of the

universe) as limiting adjunct. In the view in which Ishvara is the

reflection in nescience, the original (i.e. the consciousness which

is reflected) is known as the witness.

Para 135. In the view in which Ishvara is the reflection (of

consciousness), the consciousness which permeates the jIva as well

as Ishvara in the same manner as the form of the face permeates the

original face and its reflection (in a mirror), and which is aware

of everything is called the witness. In the view of the Vartikakara,

Ishvara himself is the witness and so the seer is only twofold, as

Ishvara and jIva.

Para 136. Ishvara is threefold, as Vishnu, Brahma and Rudra in

accordance with the three gunas of avidya which is the limiting

adjunct of brahman. Brahman with sattvaguNa in the causal state as

limiting adjunct is Vishnu, the protector. Brahman with rajoguNa in

the causal state as limiting adjunct is Brahma, the creator. Brahman

with tamoguNa in the causal state as limiting adjunct is Rudra, the

destroyer.

From the above extracts it is seen that Ishvara is not pure nirguNa

brahman, but brahman associated with mAya or nescience. Ishvara

cannot therefore be paramAtha satya.

In Panchadasi, chapter 1, it is said:

Brahman reflected in mAyA is the omniscient Ishvara, who controls

mAyA.

Thus according to Panchadasi also, Ishvara cannot be paramArtha

satyam.

In VivekachUdDAmaNi, the method of determining the meaning of the

mahAvAkya `Tat tvam asi' is explained. In his commentary on this by

Svami Chandrasekhara Bharati it is pointed out that the primary

meaning of the word `Tat' is Ishvara. To establish the identity of

jIva and brahman the upAdhis of both Ishvara and jIva have to be

ignored and the implied meaning of the words Tat and tvam is to be

taken . This also shows that Ishvara has the upAdhi of mAyA and so

Ishvara cannot be paramArtha satyam.

My teachers, who are eminent scholars in Vedanta—you know who they

are—have clearly stated that though Ishvara is in essence, brahman,

like jIva, both Ishvaratva and jIvatva are mithyA. So Ishvara as

Ishvara is not pAramArthika satyam.

I am not writing all this merely to enter into a debate with you. I

know that you are a student of Vedanta in the University , while I

am only an amateur in this line, and so I respect your views. But I

strongly feel that your understanding on this particular point is

not correct. The quotations given by you do not support your

conclusion that Ishvara is paramArtha satyam. There is no point in

our going on arguing about this endlessly. I would therefore request

you to consult one of the Professors of Vedanta in the University,

to whom you have access, on this point and let us know what they

say, so that the members of this group can know the correct

position.

I have stated all that I can say in this matter and so you may

either take my advice and consult one of the Professors or leave the

matter at that. I do not wish to continue arguing on this subject,

since this is turning out to be physically strenuous for me because

of age.

With best wishes,

S,N..Sastri

May 16, 2008

--- On Thu, 5/15/08, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

snsastri <sn.sastri

>

> advaitin@ s.com, " antharyami_ in " <sathvatha@>

> wrote:

> >

> Iswara has to be placed

> > only in ParamArtika satta since according to Advaita Vedanta

> > Savisesa Iswara Upasana leads to Krama Mukti.

> > With Narayana Smrti,

> > Devanathan.J

Devanathanji -PraNAms - I am sure you know Upaasana itself does not lead to

mukti - One can go up to Brahma loka - then ether one comes back or get

knowledge of oneness - brahma aatma ekatva bodha - since upaasana involves

dvaita and advaita teaching is needed for mukti.

Sastriji - PraNams

----------

Dear Shri Devanathan

nirguNa brahman alone is paramArtha satyam. Ishvara is saguNa

brahman. As you know, there are various theories about the nature of

jIva and Ishvara. In all these theories one common factor is that

Ishvara is brahman associated with triguNAtmikA mAyA in some way or

other.

--------

Yes - said beautifully -

In the explanation of 'tat aikshata' 'bahu syaam' - Shankara and Vidyaaranya

bring out that Sad Brahman cannot be attributed to iikshatavam since it involves

kriya or action and hence vikaara. Hence one has to invoke maaya as the upaadhi

and upaadhi sahita chidaabhaasa Brahman - constituting Iswara as aikshata - Thus

upahita chaitanya - where iikshata is more indicative that caitanya is involved

via of course as Iswara. Thus saguna with maaya upahita chaitanya is involved.

In one sense analysis is the same for both Iswara saakshii and jiiva saakshii.

I am just repeating what you wrote for my own satisfaction as I am preparing for

my chandogya class!

Hari Om!

Sadananda

May 16, 2008

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

> --- On Thu, 5/15/08, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

>

Namaskarams,

I just dropped in after a while and hence have not followed this topic. A couple

of thoughts

(only to provide some non-academic and intuitive perspective).

I understand Ishvara as the same as Brahman seen from the angle of cause and

effect.

Brahman due to Maya appears as jiva and jagat; and to the jiva, Brahman (as the

Reality

underlying Totality of experience) appears as Ishvara: one who creates,

preserves, destroys

(makes duality appear) with His power of maya.

The term Ishvara is only a reference to Brahman (a name-superimposition) from

the jiva's

standpoint of ignorance. It seems vyavahaarika notation since it is appropriate

only for the

jiva; but if understood as the Reality behind the duality perceived in Maya,

then Ishvara is

our familiar way of associating with the paramaarthika satta: Brahman.

thollmelukaalkizhu

May 16, 2008

Respected Shri Shastr-ji

Sashtang namaskarams.

My apologies for interjecting.

Without retracing a lot of the earlier discussion, let

me humbly submit very briefly what I think the basic

point is - that the vastu, the One without a second,

is verily the Supreme Being Alone, in other words

Ishwara.

It is the ignorant jIva, without recognizing this

Being to be his own Self, who superimposes or projects

qualities of Omniscience, Omnipotence, etc on the

non-dual vastu - so any talk of limitation is never

from the standpoint of Ishwara, but from the

standpoint of the jivA alone - since it is only to the

latter than avidyA pertains.

This is borne out in the very first lines of

GaudapAdA's kArikA >

Nivrtteh SarvadukhAnAm Ishanah Prabhuravyayah

Advaitah SarvabhAvAnAm Devasturyo Vibhuh Smrtah

for which Shankara's commentary states very clearly:

Nivrtteh: in the matter of eradication; sarvadukhanam

- of all sorrows represented by Vishwa, Taijasa and

Prajna, the Self that is Turiya is IshAnah, the

Ordainer. Prabhuh, Lord is an explanation of the word

IshAnah. The idea is that He is the Lord capable of

ordaining the cessation of sorrow; for sorrow ceases

as a result of His knowledge. (He is)avyayah,

unchanging, that is to say, does not deviate from His

nature. Why? Because He is advaitah, non-dual, on

account of the falsity of all objects, like the snake

on a rope. He who is this devah - effulgent One, so

called because of His self-effulgence, smrtah, held

to be; turiyah, the Fourth; and vibhuh - the

Omnipresent.

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

--- snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

> >

> > advaitin , " antharyami_in "

> <sathvatha@>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > Iswara has to be placed

> > > only in ParamArtika satta since according to

> Advaita Vedanta

> > > Savisesa Iswara Upasana leads to Krama Mukti.

> > > With Narayana Smrti,

> > > Devanathan.J

>

> Dear Shri Devanathan

> nirguNa brahman alone is paramArtha satyam. Ishvara

> is saguNa

> brahman.

> From the above extracts it is seen that Ishvara is

> not pure nirguNa

> brahman, but brahman associated with mAya or

> nescience. Ishvara

> cannot therefore be paramAtha satya.

> This also shows that Ishvara has the upAdhi

> of mAyA and so

> Ishvara cannot be paramArtha satyam.

May 16, 2008

nirguNa brahman alone is paramArtha satyam. Ishvara is saguNa brahman. As

you know, there are various theories about the nature of

jIva and Ishvara. In all these theories one common factor is that Ishvara

is brahman associated with triguNAtmikA mAyA in some way or

other.

praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji & Sri sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

After seeing somany scholarly mails on pAramArthika satyatva of Ishwara, I

was myself started wondering whether I strayed somewhere in understanding

this concept...But after talking to my guruji & reading comments from

stalwarts of advaitin forum Sri Sastri prabhuji & Sri Sadananda prabhuji

now, my doubts have been vanished without any trace.

Yes, as Sri Sastri prabhuji said, Ishwara in advaita vEdAnta is saguNa

brahman, and this same saguNa brahman has been called as apara brahman also

(I've the confirmation about this from one of the most respected members of

this list Sri Subbu prabhuji)...Hence Ishwara, saguNabrahman, aparabrahman,

sOpAdhika brahman, amukhya brahman, kArya brahman, sAkAra brahman are all

synonyms and always takes a lower seat when it comes to nirguNa,

nirvishEsha, nirupAdhika, mukhya, para, niravayava brahman. Shankara makes

this distinction between kArya (apara) brahma & mukhya (para) brahma

amply clear in the sUtra bhAshya 4-3-7...Here he states : The doubt arises

whether the devotees are led to kArya (effect), apara (lower) or paraM

(higher) brahman itself, avirkutaM (unmodified), mukhya (primary) brahman??

Whence this doubt?? because of the word brahman, and because of the shruti

teaching movement. Here the teacher bAdarI thinks that it is the

*kArya/saguNa/apara* brahman since motion (movement) is applicable ONLY to

this brahman...Subsequently shankara gives variants of both the terms para

& apara brahman.

Now the question is do these two brahman-s are two distinct entities??

Shankara clarifies this doubt too in the sUbra bhAshya 4-3-14..Please refer

this dialogue between vEdAntin & pUrvapaxi :

vEdAntin : Here shruti-s teaching movement in the context of apara brahman,

have been wrongly applied to para brahman, merely because of failure to

discriminate between the Higher and the Lower brahman..

pUrvapaxi : Are there two brahmans then?? the higher & the lower??

vEdAntin : yes, there are two..(this is borne out) by the shruti : " O

satyakAma, verily this OmkAra is both the Higher and the Lower brahman..

pUrvapaxi : In that case which is the higher and which is the lower ??

vEdAntin : where brahman is taught by means of words like astUlaM (not

gross) negating specific features such as name and form created by avidyA,

that is the higher brahman. Where on the other hand, that same brahman is

taught as qualified by some specific features for the purpose of

meditation, as for instance by means of such words as manOmayaH ( made up

of mind) prANasharIro (having prANa for his body) (chandOgya explains this

brahma rUpa in 3-14-2) bArUpaH (of the nature of light) etc. that is the

lower brahman.

pUrvapaxi : If you say there are two brahmans then the shruti teaching of

nonduality would be violated in this case...is it not??

vEdAntin : No. for this has been obviated by stating that THE FORM WITH

ATTRIBUTES IS DUE TO THE CONDITIONING ADJUNCT OF NAME AND FORM CREATED BY

AVIDYA (capitals are mine for emphasization )...

The last sentence of vEdAntin is what constitutes the picture of Ishwara in

absolute non-dual philosophy of shankara. It is clearly said without any

ambiguity that the limited /conditioning adjucts of apara brahman is

created by avidyA..whereas brahman in itself remains in its pristine purity

even when it is endowed with qualities by mediocre intellects...

I hope following express statements from shankara in sUtra bhAshya (2-1-14)

would put full stop to all the speculations about the concept of Ishwara

from the doctrinal point of view (sidhhAnta drushti) (I've quoted this

earlier also..once again for ready reference ):

Thus brahman conditioned by name and form set up by avidyA becomes Ishwara,

just as universal ether limited as it were by jars, pots etc. And

empirically speaking, He (the Ishwara) rules over the souls conditioned by

individual consciousness called jIva-s, who are really one with Himself,

but who like the jar spaces of the illustration depend upon aggregates of

the body and the senses effected by name and form presented 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...BUT IN THE ATMAN, REALLY DIVESTED OF ALL CONDITIONING

FACTORS on the dawn of vidyA, there cannot be any room for conceptions like

the ruler and the ruled, omniscience etc. Accordingly, it has been

declared in the shruti That is the infinite where one sees nothing else,

hears nothing else, knows nothing else (chAndOgya 7-24-1) and also by the

text beginning with *But when for this one all has become the Atman along

then what could one possibly see and with what (bruhadAraNyaka-4-5-15)..

While on the subject, I'd like to quote Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji-s

references from some minor upanishads tejObindu upanishad & varahA

upanishad which he kindfully shared with me off the list. (since shankara

has not commented on these upansihads I am not able to ascertain whether

these are authentic ones...)nevertheless, I am quoting this since it is

substantiating what shankara said in sUtra bhAshya :

// quote //

" The Vedas, Puranas, effect and cause, Ishvara and the world and the

elements and mankind - all these are unreal. There is no doubt about

it. Bondage, salvation, happiness, relatives, meditation, chitta, the

Devas, the asuras, the secondary and the primary, the high and the

low - all these are unreal. There is no doubt about it. Whatever is

uttered by the the mouth, whatever is willed by sankalpa, whatever is

thought by means - all these are unreal.... etc "

Quotes from Varaha Upanishad :

" Except for my Atma, the universe, jiva, Ishvara, maya and others do not

really exist. I have not their characteristics. Karma which has dharana and

other attributes is of the form of darkness and ajnana and is not fot to

touch Me, who am Atma, the Self-resplendent. "

" The whole of the universe is caused through sankalpa alone. It is only

through sankalpa that the universe manifests. "

" As the akasha of the pot and that of the house are both located in the

all-pervading akasha, so the jivas and Ishvara are only evolved out of Me,

the chidakasha. So that which did not exist before the evolution from Atma

and that which is rejected at the end, is called maya, and its effects are

annihilated; there is (then) no state of Ishvara, no state of jiva.

Therefore, like the akasha without its vehicle, I am the immaculate and

Chit. "

// unquote //

It is glaringly evident from the above upanishad & bhAshya quotes that

Ishwara is kEvala vyavahArik reality where the Ishwara (the omniscient &

omnipotent one) is thought of as the cause and ruler of this phenomenal

world containing individual souls (jIva-s)...By noway, we can stretch this

duality to pAramArthik level & declare Ishwara too has the pAramArthika

satyatva...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

PS : To keep Sri Subbu prabhuji & Sri Chitta prabhuji informed I am

marking a CC to them also.

May 16, 2008

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> pUrvapaxi : If you say there are two brahmans then the shruti

teaching of

> nonduality would be violated in this case...is it not??

>

> vEdAntin : No. for this has been obviated by stating that THE FORM

WITH

> ATTRIBUTES IS DUE TO THE CONDITIONING ADJUNCT OF NAME AND FORM

CREATED BY

> AVIDYA (capitals are mine for emphasization )...

>

> The last sentence of vEdAntin is what constitutes the picture of

Ishwara in

> absolute non-dual philosophy of shankara. It is clearly said

without any

> ambiguity that the limited /conditioning adjucts of apara brahman is

> created by avidyA..whereas brahman in itself remains in its

pristine purity

> even when it is endowed with qualities by mediocre intellects...

>

Although we say there are two Brahmans, in reality there is only ONE:

that Brahman in the context of inscrutable maya/avidya is seen as

saguna and called Ishvara. Your quotes seem to allow this once they

explain what is Ishvara. The emphasis on two Brahmans reduces ~ to

two standpoints.

The real question is whether the notation of Ishvara is justified.

Why do we not simply label saguna Brahman as Nature? Why do we call

It Ishvara and associate omniscience etc? It has to do with the fact

that by Ishvara we are actually indicating the nondual Reality,

underlying both individual consciousness and " material law " . The

usage Ishvara is indicator to the advaita paramaarthika satya (as

opposed to Nature, that may be preferred by Buddhists etc); as It is

the Reality of our consciousness, we associate with It the complete

notions of Consciousness, Omniscience, ruler of souls, etc. In all

cases, the nonduality or unity (as one Supreme Being) of the whole is

emphasized: the justification has to come from the paramaarthika

understanding -- saguna Brahman by itself need not have such unifying

connotations.

I am not saying saguna Brahman is paramaarthika satya; by definition

it is not. However (it is worth the argument that) the reference to

saguna Brahman or Ishvara is actually an implicit reference to the

nirguna Brahman underlying our saguna experience of existence.

thollmelukaalkizhu

May 17, 2008

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Respected Shri Shastr-ji

>

> This is borne out in the very first lines of

> GaudapAdA's kArikA >

>

> Nivrtteh SarvadukhAnAm Ishanah Prabhuravyayah

> Advaitah SarvabhAvAnAm Devasturyo Vibhuh Smrtah

>

> for which Shankara's commentary states very clearly:

>

> Nivrtteh: in the matter of eradication; sarvadukhanam

> - of all sorrows represented by Vishwa, Taijasa and

> Prajna, the Self that is Turiya is IshAnah, the

> Ordainer. Prabhuh, Lord is an explanation of the word

> IshAnah. The idea is that He is the Lord capable of

> ordaining the cessation of sorrow; for sorrow ceases

> as a result of His knowledge. (He is)avyayah,

> unchanging, that is to say, does not deviate from His

> nature. Why? Because He is advaitah, non-dual, on

> account of the falsity of all objects, like the snake

> on a rope. He who is this devah - effulgent One, so

> called because of His self-effulgence, smrtah, held

> to be; turiyah, the Fourth; and vibhuh - the

> Omnipresent.

>

> Hari OM

> Shri Gurubhyoh namah

> Shyam

Dear Shri Shyam,

If you see the bhAshya in Sanskrit on mANDUkya kArikA 1.10 which you

have referred to, you will see that the word IshAnaH does not refer

to Ishvara at all. The English translation given by you does not

bring out the meaning correctly.

The bhAshya says: " IshAna ityasya padasya vyAkhyAnam prabhuriti " .

That is, the word IshAnaH means `prabhu', which is the next word in

the same kArikA itself. The word `prabhu' here does not

mean `Ishvara'. The word `prabhu' here means `capable of', as can be

seen if you read the bhAshya in Sanskrit.

The first sentence in the bhAshya on this kArikA is--

prAjna-taijasa-vishva-lakshaNAnAm sarvaduHkhAnAm nivRitteH IshAnaH

turIyaH AtmA--

The meaning of this sentence is: The AtmA, which is turIya, is

capable of removing all the sorrows of the deep sleep, dream, and

waking states.

How does the AtmA remove the sorrows? This is explained by this

sentence: tadvijnAnanimittatvAt duHkhanivRitteH. The meaning of this

sentence is:

Realization of that (AtmA) is the means ( nimitta) for removal of

sorrow.

Thus all that is stated in this kArikA is that realization of the

AtmA is the means for removal of all sorrow.

This Atma is described as avyaya, advaita, turyaH, vibhuH, etc. None

of these terms is used here to describe Ishvara. All of them

desctibe AtmA.

The word `devaH' in this kArikA is explained in the bhAshya

as `dyotanAt', which means `luminous'. This word too does not mean

Ishvara at all.

Thus there is no word at all which means Ishvara in this kArikA.

Therefore there is nothing in this kArikA to say that Ishvara is

turiya, or paramArtha satyam, etc.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

May 17, 2008

Hari OM~

Pranams, Prof V.K ji, Shri Sastri ji, Shri Shyam ji and others.

In the avatharika portion of BG 15.16, Sankara comments `The uttara

sloka (16) helps us to understand the two aspects of the same

Iswara, One is SopAdhika and the other is NirupAdika; where

SopAdhika dharma is further classified into two, namely Ksara –

Upadhi and Aksara upadhi. Whereas Nirupadhika dharma is entirely

different from the above said categories'. I place my

premise `Iswara is Paramarthika' in the aforesaid lines from Gita

Bashya. Prof ji, Ksara upadhis and Aksara upadhis are

correspondingly linked with Vyaktha maya and avyaktha Maya

respectively. Vyaktha Maya as the ParinAmyupAdAna kArana is

subjected to transformations and hence is transient as the name

itself refers. The avyaktha Maya ironically is related to state

of `Aprapancam' (as Anandagiri refers) is the unmanifested state of

Prakrti, which changes not as it is regarded to be jada. Iswara

stands in relation with both these aspects and states of Maya whence

he is known to be the Ksara and Aksara Purusas. The subtle point to

be noted here is the definitions gives for these two upadhis. In BG

15.16 (1) Acharya says `Ksarati iti KsaraH; Aksarasca utpatti Bijam

(avyaktam)' iti. Apart from these two upadhi-sahitha Iswara; Sankara

extends a third plane existence `atItAnAgatAdhyAyArthajAtam tridhA

rAsi' where he accomodates Iswara in Paramarthika state, different

from above two Upadhi sahitha Iswaratvas. This is evident in

Acharyas own words `Ksara – aksarAbhyAm anyaH vilaksana Ksara-aksara

upAdhi doseNa asprstaH Nitya suddha Buddha muktaH svabhAvah –

IswaraH' iti. The same Iswara is discerned in a dimensional

apprehension where the real, Hishest Iswara is identified with the

Parmarthika (third Rasi) state that alone transcends the Ksara and

Aksara Upadhis, which lies within the empirical scope. Now I would

like to consolidate certain axio-epistemological situations of the

above said categories in the following norms. Firstly, in Advaita

Vedanta SakAram is two-fold; 1) SopAdhika sAkaram 2) Nirupadhika

sAkaram ceti. SopAdhika sAkaram is eka rupam, which is Karya karana

jAla avidyApadamiti. On the other hand NirupAdhika sAkAram is three

fold vide, a) BrahmavidyA sakaram b) Ananda sAkaram and c)

UbhayAtmaka sAkAram ceti. Apart from this three-fold classification,

NirupAdhika sAkaram is again divided into two (Punardvivida) vide,

i) Nitya sAkAram ii) Mukta sAkaram ceti. We find these

classifications in the Atharvana Upanishads and are used in various

Advaita granthas. SopAdhika sAkaram is understood to be sAvayavam

and the NirupAdhika sAkAram is Niravayavam (impartite). As we know,

SopAdhika sAvayava Akaram is non-eternal while the NirupAdhika

Niravayava sAkaram is eternal. The latter is characterized by the

classification Mukta and Nitya. Now coming to the point, Ksara and

Aksara upAdhis are regarded to be Savayava Vastus and hence

transient while the NirupAdhika sAkara denotes the `Third rAsi',

which is the Nitya Suddha Buddha mukta Iswara (ksarAksara vilaksana)

who must undoubtedly fall on the Paramarthika state of existence.

This is confirmed in the BG Bashyam 15.18(0) where Acharya

emphatically marks Highest Reality to (NirupAdhika Niravayava)

Iswara as `Purusottama (also refer GaudapAda karika III.1) is one

who stands to transcend all relations – `Niratisaya aham IswaraH'

iti. Bhashyotkarsa Dipika too confirms in favour of my premise

saying `Iswarasya NarayanAkyasya Vibhuti samksepavarnena SopAdhikam…

ParmatmanaH KsarAksara upAdhi vibhaktayA Nirupadhikasya kevalasya

svarupanirdhArinAya sarvameva atIta anAgata tridhA rAsIkrtyAha' iti –

The essence of the empirical world is nothing but Narayana as in

association with the limiting adjunts (two fold) while the third

(tridhA rAsIkrtyAha), stands apart from all relations who remains

Pure and pristine. We now have to set right the concept

of `Nirvisesa Brahman' or the `Nirguna Brahman' and its state of

existence. Tapaniya Rahasyas of Atharvana Veda gives the Nirvisesa

Brahma Laksanam as, `Nirvisesam atinirmalam bhavati; suddha

bodhAnanda laksana kaivalyam Bhavati; Akhanda paripurna SaccidAnanda

svaprakAsam bhavati' iti. While the Iswara Laksana is gives

as, `Akhila kArya karana svarupa akhanda cidAnanda divya mangala

AkAram Niratisaya ananda Tejo asivasam sarva paripUrna Ananda

bodhAnanda ananta paripurna ananda divya saudaminicayAkAram; evam

akaram AdvitIya akhanda Brahma svarupam Nirupitam' iti. When we map

the two laksanas we will clearly get the picture of the existence of

both Iswara and Attributeless Brahman. The terms Kaivalyam and

AdvitIyam needs to be observed with utmost care. Iswara is regarded

AdvitIya while Brahman is relarded as Kaivalya. Both these terms are

pregnant with vast implications while they bear a gross synonymous

tone. Understanding the term Kaivalya needs special attention. Let

me give few more additional notes related to the term so that we

will arrive at the precise meaning of the same. `Satta mAtram idam

sarvam' Nr.Tap 9th Khanda Vidyaranya in his Dipika makes the

following note on the above statement. He says `KaranasyApi

anupalabdhestvasya na sattvam upapadyate' – absence of Karanatva in

the satta; `Sarvakalpakatvena purastAt siddhatve dvaita karanatvena

punarapi sadvitIyam prAptamiti iti cet – Na – Asya ParamArta

Kalpakatvamapi nAsti ityAha' iti – Here Naiyayika is the Purvapaksi

who says `if in case of everything to be considered as imagination;

the plurality imaginations causes again the status of duality alone'

for which Vidyaranya answers `No in the state of SattamAtram. Even

the ParamArtika state dissolves and so the plurality of imaginations

does not have a locus standii for any duality at all'.

More, `Sarvakalpana sAksitayA kalpakatvena va kalpitasya sanmAtrasya

sarva prAnibhiH sarva kalpanAyaH prAgeva' – Here Prancam is Kalpakam

and Saksitvam is kalpanam. Both are equated in the above statement

where we arrive at the root point that Kalpakam is kartrvam while

Kalpanam is Niyantrtvam. Though the magnitude is same the state of

operation lies in different domain, former is empirical while latter

is not. What is not empirical is either Pratibasika or Paramartika.

Former is ruled out due to obvious axiomatic reasons and hence we

deduce the existence of Iswara as Paramartika alone. Iswara and

Prapanca though have the Karana Karya bhava we have to remember the

normative axiom, which says `Karya niyatva purva vrttitvat

Karanatvam' iti. Karana is prior to Karya where Karana exists

individually even without Karya while Karya exists not apart from

Karana at any rate. Henceforth Karanatvam is independent of the

plurality of Karyas and so to say Karana is not under any dualistic

environment. Thus Iswara is not subjected to the plurality of the

world since he is the Adi karana who stands apart in a different

domain whose status is Higher than that of the pluralistic

manifestations of Universe. Kevala Satta is yet a different case as

it is not conducive to any watertight compartments like Paramartika,

Vyavaharika or pratibasika while it is not inductive to these

altogether. Brahma Siddhi'kara too refers Satta Matra satta to

Nirguna Brahman. Pratibasika is `not seen' in Vyavaharika but

apprehended to be of a lower satta than that of latter. Vyavaharika

must not be seen in `ParamArtika' but is apprehended to be of lower

satta than the latter. Similarly Nirdharmaka Kevala Kaivalya

sattmAtram is apprehended where nothing else is seen apart, not even

itself. `CinmAtrameva CinmAtram Akhandaika rasam rasam' iti. This is

Sarva varjita CinmAtram. AdvitIya Iswara is non-dual as his state is

the Highest. Highest is always in comparison withsonthing Higher and

likewise. Highest is apparently superior and nothing stands on its

par. Highest reality is Visnu as Acharya says `esa sarvesam esa

bhutadipatir esa bhutopala esa setur vidarana esAm lokAnAm

sambedhAya' (ArambanAdhikaranam 14th Sutra) – `He is the Lord of

all. He is the ruler of Beings. He is the protector of all Being. He

is the embankment serving as the Boundary to keep the different

worlds apart'. World is anitya which is Mithya; that which stands

apart from its Boundary is Nitya which is necessarily ParmArtika;

while the Nirvisesa Kevala satta is one without Boundary. The

billion-dollar Q here is `Does Iswara peep onto the other side of

the boundary to see the duality there?' Acharya quotes Br Vakya

instantly to say `No yatratvasya sarva sarvam AtmaivAbhut kena kam

pasyet' since Iswara is a Nitya MuktaH. He adds `evam

ParamArthAvasthAyAm sarvavyavahara abhavam vadanti vedAntAH sarve'

iti. Such a ParamArtha Iswara is described as Parama PurusArthah

while Acharya says `evam Param Brahma Purusam Nrkesarim (Visnu)

satyasya ParabrahmanaH svamAyaya lIlagraham PurusAkAra ParmArtham

Janiyaditi | Vidyaranya in Anubhutiprakasa says `Iswara is to be

views as Pure consciousness free from limiting adjuncts – Sutre

virAjam samhrtya sUtramavyAkrte ca tat | Vidyaranya emphatically

marks `SarvesAm hyanupAdhikaH' – Iswara is free from the (influence

of) limiting adjuncts. Sarvesa is known as IsagrAsa – one who

controls Maya and who destroys it and one who is free from it –

athah Turyam caturbedaH IsagrasAdinAmakam | dhyAyenmaheswarO MayI

yastamo'to grasatyayam | The four aspects of Iswara spelled here

are svarAt, svayam IswaraH, svaprakAsah and Isagrasa ceti.

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

Pls Note:

I'm afraid the content here may be too heavy for most of the

members. The issue being acute and crucial, I am forced to treat it

with greater force. I make a humble request to those who understood

the content here, to give me a hand in helping others who may have

difficulty in discerning the above discussion. I will also try my

level best to give clarifications to those who are interested.

Difficulty lies only with the terminologies and their implications

involved in the subject matter while the essence is always simple,

if I am right. Decoding the technical terms may need some

assistance; otherwise the content must be lucid to everyone here.

Thank You.

May 19, 2008

Respected Shastri-ji

SAshtAng pranAms.

Thank you for taking time in responding to my post.

My point of contention in my post was

" that the vastu, the One without a second,

is verily the Supreme Being Alone, in other words

Ishwara. "

While I do not disagree with you, (of course!), when

you say that the terms prabhu, ishana and vibhuh can

refer to the Atman it is my contention that these are

used interchangeable with the Supreme Lord.

Do these terms Vibhu and ishAna have any derivates

that are not based in duality? So is it not

incongruous to state that these terms are indicative

of nonduality but the term Ishwara is indicative of

duality? Is it not more appropriate to understand all

these terms as referring to the verysame Supreme

Being?

Shastri-ji is not the derivation of the term Atma

itself - " Since it pervades, absorbs and enjoys all

objects in the world and since from It the world

derives its continuous existence, hence it is Atma " ?

What else is " That from which world derives its

continuous existence " but the Supreme Lord?

After all the Upanishads declare that it is from fear

of Him, the Atman, alone that the Order is maintained

- the Sun, Fire, etc perform their multifarious

actions!

Later in the KarikAs GaudapAdA (4.82) talks about the

Lord being veiled being difficult to realize and here

the term BhagwawAn is used - again referring to the

ParamAtman alone - sukham Avritye nityam dukham

vivriyate sadaa yasya kasya cha dharmasya grahena

BhagawAn asau - .......the ever-effulgent Lord is not

easily realized! Is not what is meant by the term " the

Lord " in this context the Atman alone??

Respected ShAstri-ji, I am not suggesting here that

the Ultimate Truth of IshwarA is one with form - and

the technical definition of Ishwara i am well aware

and admit is that of Brahman with Maya. But Shastri-ji

are not technical terms meant to clarify rather than

cloud the Vision of the Truth>?

My only perspective is this - that there are no two

Brahmans - higher and lower nor are there two Supreme

Lords - higher and lower.

Anyone who sees a construct of duality in this regard

is only looking at the One Reality through the prism

of avidyA. And since avidyA is ever the lot of the

jivA, one cannot say the Supreme is subject to the

same. The Supreme One is not limited by Maya either

because Maya - yogaMaya - is His or Brahman's own

inscrutable power and nondifferent from Him - as both

Bhagwan Krishna as well as Shankara allude to multiple

times.

In fact in one section of the Brahma Sutras (i dont

have the exact reference readily available) while

refuting the position of the BhAgwatas, Shankara says

in as many words that we have the very same view that

it is Lord Narayana alone who is the consciousness

principle and that the point of disagreement is ONLY

with respect to the latter's contention that he

divides himself into four real aspects such as

Pradyumna, Aniruddha, etc

In the Bhagawad Gita bhashya to Ch 13, Shankara

clearly uses the term Ishwara to refer to the Atman

when he says the knower of the field i.e. Atman is

Ishwara alone, and that ignorance can never have any

contact with this Supreme One.

My humble pranAms once again to you.

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

--- snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

> The bhAshya says: " IshAna ityasya padasya vyAkhyAnam

> prabhuriti " .

> That is, the word IshAnaH means `prabhu', which is

> the next word in

> the same kArikA itself. The word `prabhu' here does

> not

> mean `Ishvara'. The word `prabhu' here means

> `capable of', as can be

> seen if you read the bhAshya in Sanskrit.

> The first sentence in the bhAshya on this kArikA

> is--

> prAjna-taijasa-vishva-lakshaNAnAm sarvaduHkhAnAm

> nivRitteH IshAnaH

> turIyaH AtmA--

May 20, 2008

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Respected Shastri-ji

> SAshtAng pranAms.

> Thank you for taking time in responding to my post.

> My point of contention in my post was

> " that the vastu, the One without a second,

> is verily the Supreme Being Alone, in other words

> Ishwara. "

Shri Shyam-ji,

The Supreme Being in advaita Vedanta is only nirguNa brahman and

not Ishvara. Ishvara is saguNa brahman, i.e., brahman associated

with mAyA.

Shyam

> While I do not disagree with you, (of course!), when

> you say that the terms prabhu, ishana and vibhuh can

> refer to the Atman it is my contention that these are

> used interchangeable with the Supreme Lord.

Sastri--

I did not say that the terms prabhu, IshAna and vibhu in mANDUkya

kArika i.10 refer to AtmA. What I said, based solely on the bhAshya

on this shloka, was that IshAna is used as a synonym for prabhu and

prabhu in this context means `is capable of'. In the Hindi

translation of this shloka in the Gita Press edition the

word `prabhu has been translated as `samarth' which means ` is

capable'. and that is the correct meaning in this context. The term

vibhu means `all-pervading' and it describes AtmA or brahman (both

are the same) here

Shyam--

> Do these terms Vibhu and ishAna have any derivates

> that are not based in duality? So is it not

> incongruous to state that these terms are indicative

> of nonduality but the term Ishwara is indicative of

> duality? Is it not more appropriate to understand all

> these terms as referring to the verysame Supreme

> Being?

Sastri--

The words IshAna and prabhu have other meanings also, but they are

not relevant here. In Sanskrit every word has a number of

meanings , as you may know, and we have to take the meaning

applicable in the context. Here the meaning has been given in the

bhshya itself. I have not said that these terms indicate non-

duality. I wonder how you got this idea. The term vibhu means `all-

pervading' It is applicable to brahman and Ishvara and also to the

jIva, because all the three are all-pervading. In the bhAshya on

brahma sutra 2.3.29 it is stated; tasmAt vinhuH jIvah—Therefore jIva

is all-pervading or omnipresent.

Ishvara is not nirguNa brahman . Ishvara is brahman with the upAdhi

of mAyA. This is a fact beyond dispute. I am not able to understand

the purport of the last two sentences in your above para.

Dhyam--

Shastri-ji is not the derivation of the term Atma

> itself - " Since it pervades, absorbs and enjoys all

> objects in the world and since from It the world

> derives its continuous existence, hence it is Atma " ?

Sastri--

AtmA is the same as brahman . brahman is Existence. The world is

superimposed on brahman. So the world derives its existence from

brahman. This is the meaning of the above definition of brahman . In

the upanishads and in the bhAshya the words AtmA and brahman are

often used as interchangeable.

Shyam--

> What else is " That from which world derives its

> continuous existence " but the Supreme Lord?

Sastri--

I have said above that the world derives its existence from

brahman.

Shyam--

> After all the Upanishads declare that it is from fear

> of Him, the Atman, alone that the Order is maintained

> - the Sun, Fire, etc perform their multifarious

> actions!

Sastri--

How does this prove that Ishvara is paramArtha satyam? Nobody denies

the existence of Isgvara. I am only saying that Ishvara is brahman

with upAdhi. NirguNa braman is pure Consciousness. It does not act.

It does not have any attributes. It acts only when associated with

mAyA and then it becomes saguNa brahman which is the same as

Ishvara.

Shyam--

> Later in the KarikAs GaudapAdA (4.82) talks about the

> Lord being veiled being difficult to realize and here

> the term BhagwawAn is used - again referring to the

> ParamAtman alone - sukham Avritye nityam dukham

> vivriyate sadaa yasya kasya cha dharmasya grahena

> BhagawAn asau - .......the ever-effulgent Lord is not

> easily realized! Is not what is meant by the term " the

> Lord " in this context the Atman alone??

Sastri---

In the bhAshya it is said- bhagavAn asau AtmA advayaH ityarthaH—This

means—By the word bhagavAn is meant here the non-dual AtmA. In the

bhAshya also Shankara uses the terms brahman and Ishvara

interchangeably. This does not mean and can never mean that Ishvara

who is saguNa brahman is non-dual AtmA. The very fact that Shankara

says " ityarthaH' means that it is the meaning given to the word

bhagavAn in this specific context. We cannot extend it to mean that

Ishvara or bhagavAn is non-dual AtmA, which is a statement which

goes against the very fundamental principles of advaita.

Shyam--

> Respected ShAstri-ji, I am not suggesting here that

> the Ultimate Truth of IshwarA is one with form - and

> the technical definition of Ishwara i am well aware

> and admit is that of Brahman with Maya. But Shastri-ji

> are not technical terms meant to clarify rather than

> cloud the Vision of the Truth>?

Sastri--

I do not understand what you mean by this.

Shyam--

> My only perspective is this - that there are no two

> Brahmans - higher and lower nor are there two Supreme

> Lords - higher and lower.

Sastri--

There is only one brahman. But it is with or without upAdhi. There

is the following statement in the bhAshya on brahma sutra 1.1.1:--

asti tAvad brahma nityashuddhabuddhamuktasvabhAvam, sarvajnam,

sarvashaktisamanvitam.

Three commentators on the bhAshya, say that the term

nityashuddhabuddhamuktasvabhAvam refers to brahman without uAdhi and

the other two terms, sarvajnam and sarvashaktisamanvitam refer to

brahman with upadhi. The first term is not actually an attribute.

Like the words satyam, jnAnam, anantam in the taitt. upanishad, the

words only say what brahman is not, namely that brahman is not

transient, it is not tainted, it is not insentient, and it is never

under bondage, because brahman without upAdhi cannot be described in

a positive manner. Brahman without upAdhi is pure Consciousness and

does not do anything. To do some thing it has be associated with

mAyA as upAdhi .So the next two terms, sarvajnam and

sarvaShaktisamanvitam which mean omniscient and endowed with all

powers refer to brahman with upAdhi. The upAdhi is mAyA. This is

Ishvara who is the Creator, sustainer, etc., and is omniscient.

Shyam--

> Anyone who sees a construct of duality in this regard

> is only looking at the One Reality through the prism

> of avidyA. And since avidyA is ever the lot of the

> jivA, one cannot say the Supreme is subject to the

> same. The Supreme One is not limited by Maya either

> because Maya - yogaMaya - is His or Brahman's own

> inscrutable power and nondifferent from Him - as both

> Bhagwan Krishna as well as Shankara allude to multiple

> times.

Sastri--

You are right. There is duality only as long as we are under

ignorance. After enlightenment there is only brahman without upAdhi.

That alone is paramArtha satyam. In that state there is no world,

there is no mAyA which is the cause of the world. When there is no

mAyA there is no brahman with mAyA as upAdhi. That means there is

not even Ishvara for the enlightened person. This is not blasphemy.

There is no such thing as blasphemy in our religion. Of course even

jnAnis continue to worship God for setting an example to the world

and also, as Srimad Bhagavatam says, because of the excellences of

Hari.

Shyam--

> In fact in one section of the Brahma Sutras (i dont

> have the exact reference readily available) while

> refuting the position of the BhAgwatas, Shankara says

> in as many words that we have the very same view that

> it is Lord Narayana alone who is the consciousness

> principle and that the point of disagreement is ONLY

> with respect to the latter's contention that he

> divides himself into four real aspects such as

> Pradyumna, Aniruddha, etc

>

> In the Bhagawad Gita bhashya to Ch 13, Shankara

> clearly uses the term Ishwara to refer to the Atman

> when he says the knower of the field i.e. Atman is

> Ishwara alone, and that ignorance can never have any

> contact with this Supreme One.

Sastri--

The field is there only when there is mAyA. When there is mAya,

there is Ishvara.

I do not expect your doubts to be removed by what I have written

above. But please do not ask me any further questions. If you are

not satisfied you may merely reject what I have written.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

May 20, 2008

--- On Tue, 5/20/08, snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

Shri Shyam-ji,

The Supreme Being in advaita Vedanta is only nirguNa brahman and

not Ishvara. Ishvara is saguNa brahman, i.e., brahman associated

with mAyA.

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

Sastriji - PraNAms.

Just could not resist from saying that I concur with every word of yours.

Brahman, the absolute infinite, cannot have any attributes since all attributes

belong to finite.

Iswara by definition is finite since he is the Lord with lordship to Lord over

the universe of names and forms. Upaadhi sahita Brahman is Iswara - upaadhi

being maaya whose nature is also maaya that which is neither sat nor asat. Hence

Iswara has existence only in vyavahaara where there is duality.

When all notions of duality drops, even the notion of Iswara as well as maaya

also drop out. It is understanding rather than any real dropping since

Jiiva-Jagat-Iswara distinctions are all only notions in the mind.That is the

advaitic understanding where all dvaita is negated by abiding in the truth that

I am.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

May 20, 2008

Shri Shastri-ji

Pranams

thank you so much for taking the trouble to send your very detailed,

pristine clear statements on brahman and ishvara.

The following question is adressed to the whole group, as I am well

aware of the fact that it must be beginners question with which I do not

want to bother you:

Being a beginner in studying the scriptures, I was surprised to read

In the bhAshya on

> brahma sutra 2.3.29 it is stated; tasmAt vinhuH jIvah—Therefore

jIva

> is all-pervading or omnipresent.

I never thought of the jiva in this way. Does this all-pervasiveness or

omnipresence refer to its causal body?

Om Shanti!

Sitara

May 20, 2008

Sitara-ji,

The jIva is in reality brahman and so, like brahman, jIva is also

omnipresent. This is the sense of the statement. Because of identification

with the body the jIva thinks of himself as a limited being.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri.

On 5/20/08, Sitara <smitali17 wrote:

>

> Shri Shastri-ji

> Pranams

>

> thank you so much for taking the trouble to send your very detailed,

> pristine clear statements on brahman and ishvara.

>

> The following question is adressed to the whole group, as I am well

> aware of the fact that it must be beginners question with which I do not

> want to bother you:

>

> Being a beginner in studying the scriptures, I was surprised to read

>

> In the bhAshya on

> > brahma sutra 2.3.29 it is stated; tasmAt vinhuH jIvah—Therefore

> jIva

> > is all-pervading or omnipresent.

>

> I never thought of the jiva in this way. Does this all-pervasiveness or

> omnipresence refer to its causal body?

>

> Om Shanti!

> Sitara

>

May 21, 2008

Dear Sastr-ji,

As with Sadananda-ji, I agree with everything you said. up to this last

statement:

" There is duality only as long as we are under