mAyA is not the power of Brahman

[Chandran, Nanda (NBC)]

>Brahman does not have any powers. Brahman is powerless.
Is that right? I thought Brahman was all powerful! Again from Kena
Upanishad (I think) when each of the Gods - Agni, Vayu etc try to prove
their power against the Brahman and fail, as it's Brahman which makes
them tick! Anyway I suppose it's another way of looking at it!

>We, in our ignorance, ascribe power to Brahman and make Brahman
>Ishwara. Just like we mistakenly superpose gross-subtle body
combination on >Brahman and call ourselves jeevAs, we superpose the
power of mAyA on >Brahman and call it Ishwara, the creator. When
knowledge dawns on us, the >superposition gets shattered and we see
ourselves as Brahman. The concept >of mAyA gets shattered and Ishwara
merges with Brahman.

With the concept of Maya and Ishvara, I've questions : In the Chandogya
Upanishad, when Uddhalaka rejects the fruit and the seeds and says
what's inside the seed and what we don't see is Brahman. OK, here the
fruit and the seeds belong to the realm of Maya, in the sense that
they're not Brahman. So it's the substratum that is Brahman and not the
gross exterior - be it fruit or man! Atleast that's what I think
Shankara states. Am I right?

So why exactly do you need an Ishwara at all to say that the fruit was
created by Ishwara? Why can't be just concentrate on the thing that
really matters - the substratum? Do we need a double identity - Jiva and
Atman, for that thing within us? Same with Brahman and Ishvara. Do we
need to analyze something that's not real and exists in the realm of
Maya?

        Because e-mail can be altered electronically,
        the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed.