neti, neti

[Anand Hudli]

 Ravi wrote:

>I dont think one can negate Ishwara at any state. When one is in the
>clutches of mAyA, Ishwara is the sole support, solace and refuge. In a
>non-dual state, to talk about negating something is not meaningful.
>Ishwara is the saguNa brahman, ever willing to help and grant
>liberation. In bhagavad gIta, kR^iShNa clearly states that he will
>give
>liberation (in the 18th chapter). Ishwara is never under the clutches
>of
>mAyA and negating him while in the clutches of mAyA is self
>destructive.

 You are absolutely right in saying that one cannot negate Ishvara
 while in the clutches of Maayaa.

 As far as my understanding goes,
 the tripod of Ishvara, jiiva, and jagat, must be accepted in toto
 or be negated in toto. That is, the moment you accept one of the
 three, you must be prepared to accept the other two. If you admit
 jiiva, then this jiiva, who has ignorance, must live somewhere
 (jagat). And the jiiva must be subjected to the control by a higher
 power (simply because the jIva is ignorant), called Ishvara.  If you
 admit, to start with, Ishvara then He should be the Lord of something
 (the jagat), and must be able to control some individuals (the
 jiiva's). If you admit only the jagat, to start with, then this
 world (jagat) must be the residence of some individuals (jiiva's)
 and must have a lord who presides/controls.

 By the same token, if you negate any one of the three, Ishavara,
 jiiva, and jagat, then it is as good as negating the other two
 as well. This is because of the following. Ishavara and jiiva are
 the same Brahman with different limiting adjuncts. These limiting
 adjuncts are, in essence, maayaa. And jagat is nothing but an
 effect (product) of maayaa.

 Therefore, if you negate jagat, you are negating the effect of
 maayaa. Thereby, you are also negating limiting adjuncts of
 both Ishavara and jiiva. At that point, both jiiva and Ishvara
 are identical, Brahman. At that point, jiiva and Ishavara cease
 to have any reality. And while negating jagat, one cannot (or
 rather must not) be under the clutches of maayaa.

 The vivekachUDAmaNi aptly describes this by means of an anology.
 Ishavara is like a king with a kingdom. Jiiva is like a soldier
 with his shield. When you take away the kingdom of the king (not
 an easy thing to do!) and the shield of the soldier, the two are
 as good as the same. The verse (244) concludes "na bhaTo na raajaa."
 Here, of course, the kingdom and the shield are the limiting adjuncts
 imposed on Brahman.

>If one can say mAyA is the door to this dualistic world, then Ishwara
>is
>the door, way and the means to liberation.

 This is correct. Ishvara has the capacity to grant (krama)mukti to
 His devotees.

 Anand





______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com