[Advaita-l] About the term in 'Ishwara' in Advaita - a brief note

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Wednesday, April 4, 2012, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

> >
> > Likewise, all this is Brahman on final analysis but this Brahman is able
> to
> > appear within vyavahara as Ishwara without losing His nature as pure
> > consciousness or the Self.
>
> Perfectly okay, but what is primary to the nature of ISvara? Is it pure
> consciousness or the appearing within vyavahAra? If you agree that it
> is the former, then your argument is about a distinction without a
> difference.

I think the only nature of Ishwara is pure consciousness. From vyavahara,
we think He appears and disappears. This is caused by His para maya,
essentially non-different from Him. He does not become non-Self during His
appearance. He does not become unreal. He does not become non-bliss. It is
not like dualists assigning Him a reality equal to jagat or slightly
higher. She remains absolutely real because pure existence is Her nature.

The true nature of ISvara is brahman, but the true nature
> of jIva is also brahman. That is all that anybody is really saying.


The true nature of jagat is also Brahman. But the jagat is ultimately
unreal. It is said to be Brahman only because it is an illusion created by
apara maya, which is in reality Ishwara's divine maya, though seen as cause
of samsara. Jiva is Brahman because it is an illusion created within
vyavahara realm by Ishwara's Paramaya, non-different from Him. In the
ultimate state jagat, jivatvam and ishwaratvam in relation to jiva and
jagat will be sublated but Ishwara is not because He is the Self. Paramaya,
which is seen as different from Him, exists as non-different from Him.

I don't think this is what is being said by others because they are talking
about Ishwara becoming anatma and effect of apara maya joining brahman.



> necessary to even call brahman as ISvara, then I would remind you
> that advaita insists that the nature of paramArtha does not need
> anything from vyavahAra, except to exclude it. It is only in that sense
> that ISvara-tva is denied (transcended may be a better way of saying
> it in English) in paramArtha.
>
> It is exclusion of all particularities and its opposite inclusion.
Otherwise Brahman will be not be Purnam but Shunyam.

I am happy to be corrected as long as we don't (figuratively) kill Sankara
and Rama - bhashyam and god.