[Advaita-l] Fwd: What is 'aprAkRta' ?

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 6:50 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> RV prabhuji :
> It is vishishtopadhi as Sankara clarfies in the case of Ishvara, which
> reveals rather than cover or erroneously project.
>
> bhaskar :
>
> Kindly clarify where exactly shankara says Ishwara's is vishishtOpAdhi
> unlike jeeva's sAmAnyOpAdhi.
>

RV: In many places - 15.15 for example.

>  From the siddhAnta drushti, brahman is nirAkAra, nirguNa, nirvishesha and
> I dont think shankara compromises this
> position of shruti anywhere.  In the ArambhAdhikaraNa sUtra bhAshya
> shankara makes it very clear that the lordship of the lord, his
> sarvajnatva, sarvashaktitva etc. are only relative to the limitation caused
> by the conditioning of adjuncts of the nature of avidyA.  Atman is
> ultimately nirguNa, niravayava and in reality Atman is divested of all
> conditioning factors and on the dawn of jnAna, there cannot be any room for
> conception like the ruler and the ruled, sarvajnatva etc.

RV: We have to understand nirvisesha correctly. Pl.see my other post on
white light. It is full of attributes and *homogenous *unlike Ramanuja and
Madhwa say*. *It is advaya jnanam or jnapti (undifferentiated
knowledge). Everything is in Brahman as Brahman not as some thing else that
has a relationship to it.

It is important to understand sarvajnatvam of Ishwara. Now, vishesha jnana
or knowledge of specific objects is possible only with respect to the
spacio-temporal object and cannot exist in the absence of it. In
that paricularized sense sarvajnatvam, seen with respect to particular
objects, is relative and confined to spacio-temporal boundaries, an effect
of maya. You can become a sarvajna and ruler by realizing Purusha is
different from Buddhi (P.Y.S. 3.14 or MS BG 6.20) but you will still be a
step away from Ishwara. The cause of this particularized sarvajnatvam is
moola avidya or para maya, which is transcendental to space and time. This
para-maya is the divine energy of Ishwara and being shakti is non-different
from Ishwara, who is transcendental to spacio-temporal limitations.
Therefore sarvajnatvam, without particularities, is essential nature of
Ishwara.

Sri Bhaskar: However, I do agree that shankara while talking about upAsana,
krama mukti etc. does agree that Ishwara has the special ability to create
and jeeva in hiraNyagarbha lOka never matches the qualities of Ishwara in
this respect.

RV: Agree. Hiranyagarbha, as you know, is different from Ishwara discussed
above.

RV prabhuji :

>
> Brahman is like a featureless sleeping snake (nirguna brahman)which when it
> dances (saguna brahman or adi karta narayayna) produces ghost images (pancha
> bautika loka) through the instrument of maya.
>
> bhaskar :
>
> I think paramahaMsa rAmakrishna also gives this example to show
> shiva-shakti abedha.  I do agree that when it comes to the 'reality' of
> srushti, the srushtikarta is nothing but that omnipotent and omniscient
> Ishwara.  shankara too acknowledges this in the very second sUtra of brahma
> sUtra.  And elsewhere shankara talks about the 'exclusive attributes' of the
> brahman since mundaka shruti says this brahman is sarvajnaH, sarvavit etc.
>  But, again, all these points donot prove that brahman is even in the
> paramArthika sense vishishtOpAdhika Ishwara. sOpAdhika brahma is meant only
> for meditation and saguNOpAsana.  And for
> the enquiry & realization it would be shruti-s ultimatum i.e. nirguNa,
> nirAkAra, nirupAdhika, nirvishesha parabrahman only.
>
RV: I dont know if Ramakrishna is a paramahamsa but if interested will share
with you offline the interesting episode that lead me to get to this snake
example. If you see BG 15. 14 - 18, Sankara talks about Ishwara as
Sopadhikara and also Niropadhikara. It is not correct to say that Ishwara is
always sopadhikara and Brahman is always niropadhikara. It is like
wrongly saying Brahman is formless and Ishwara is Brahman with form. Brahman
and Ishwara are one (BG 8.24 for e.g.) The main difference between Brahman
and Ishwara is the point of view. At the moment at which you merge in to
Ishwara, you become Brahman. It is like ganges entering the ocean and
becoming the latter. The ocean does not become non-existent but the view of
it as an external object of upasana is sublated because you are that.