[Advaita-l] Re: Ishvara in advaita vEdAnta

Viswanathan N vishy1962 at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 25 22:53:40 CST 2006

Pranams Makwanaji
  "How can someone merge with something that is only existing in their dr^ishti? so the only thing you ever 'merge' with is nirguNa brahman but strictly speaking we never actually merge."
  Very well said,Krunalji.
  The very fact is 'you are that', all others neing mere mental projections. When you are 'that' where is the question of seeking and merging!!! you are not able to see what you really are because the layers of Avidya (ignorance) and Ahamkara (Ego). The movement you drop them you realise 'The Truth'.
  You neednt acquire anything nor travel anywhere nor do anything to reach that point, other than Just dropping what you have acquiered so far in so many names that is  covering you.In other words just drop 'The mind' and than you find 'It' right now right here. 
  I would  say " Ashtavakra Samhita/ Geeta' is ultimate scripture in this regard to understand the truth rather any otherthing.


Krunal Makwana <krunalmakwana at hotmail.com> wrote:
  namo nArAyana

> > the forms and lokAs of Ishvara> > that exist are for bhaktAnugraha. they exist eternally.

The only thing that exists eternally or if you want to be more specific that which is not effected at all by time, hence it is not non-eternal or eternal is brahman. 

Ishvara and lokas are only 'real and eternal' ONLY in the existence of vyavahArika reality they are themselves dependent on the supreme reality, brahman.

I remember reading a chapter from 'autobiography of a yogi' by paramhamsa Yogananda where he says there are different levels of moksha/lOkas but supreme realisation is where there is only kaivalya. Lokas are 'real', yes, only when the devotee still perceives a difference between himself and brahman. So even though they are realised they are not 'fully' realised. I remember a shloka from BG where kR^ishna says that 'after your merits are finished, the souls come back down to earth' in the same manner after the devotee has spent time in lokas of Ishvara they come back down to material creation.> On 11/24/06, Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy wrote:> > > -- First objection: There could not be remnant karma for Ishvara like in the> > > case of a jIvanmukta.Why does this entity Ishvara not want to merge with> > > nirguNa brahma? 

I take amuthanji's comment on this that Ishwar does not really exist, only due to our 'drshya' he exists but if there is no 'drshya' there is no Ishvara. So Ishvara does not want to merge with nirgUna brahman because Ishvara does not really exist (in supreme reality). Krsna explains in the BG that even though he carries out karma, karma does not bind him, hence karma does not effect him.

> > only if there is avidyA, the notion of difference from brahman exists.> > since brahman itself assumes the form of Ishvara using it's> > anirvachanIya mAyA shakti, the above question is not valid.

By the comment before the concept of Ishvara 'using' its anirvanchanIya mAyA shakti does not arise. I think we say he 'uses' his shakti because we as finite minds cannot comprehend how brahman becomes ishvara in the first place BUT then again if we knew the answer to that we wouldn't be discussing this.
> On 11/24/06, Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy wrote:> > > -- Second objection: This Ishvaratva becomes a parallel goal along with> > > nirguNa brahma.

No, it is only one goal

> > For example, one can try to attain Ishvaratva or merger with shrI mahAviShNu, rather than merger with nirguNa brahma.

How can someone merge with something that is only existing in their dr^ishti? so the only thing you ever 'merge' with is nirguNa brahman but strictly speaking we never actually merge.

> > >What advantage is there in attaining nirguNa brahma, rather than Ishvaratva? Even if we assume that one does not have the capability of merging with Ishvara in the above sense, the
> > > first objection still stands.

I think the advantage is you have a much greater chance of getting moksha :)! With ishvara just being a superimposition

> 1. ishvaraH - verse 4 - one who has unlimited lordliness or power over ALL> > things - I think this would include time etc.> >> > 2. ishvaraH - verse 8 - the omnipotent being> > > Unfortunately, both the above definitions fit the description of nirguNa> brahma or shrI mahAviShNu. Thus, the question still persists.

How can they? when Brahman is 'nirguNa' - without qualities. the definitions only stands correct in relation to Ishvara. Brahman is akartA so there is no need for him to have power of all things etc because there exists nothing a part from brahman.

> What I was wondering was whether the word "Ishvara" refers to nirguNa brahma> (as referred to in the vyAvahArika world) or some entity within vyAvahAra,> be it shrI mahAviShNu or shrI sadAshiva or any of the various forms> glorified as supreme in the itihAsas and the purANas (I am not particular> about which deity is being regarded as supreme.)

I think it refers to an entity within vyAvahAric reality.
Kind regards,Krunal
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

 Find out what India is talking about on  - Yahoo! Answers India 
 Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Yahoo! Messenger Version 8. Get it NOW

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list