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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Friday, April 6, 2012, V Subrahmanian wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> > rajaramvenk at gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> There is no room to say that the reflection is unreal and different fom
> the original.
>

The upadhi in which the reflection takes place is what is negated.  When
this upAdhi is negated, there is no longer any validity to call that entity
as 'ishwara' or 'jiva'.  There is no longer a reflection at all; all that
is there is the original. That is the Advaitic method.


> But the reflecting medium for Ishwara is the paramaya, which is
> satcitananda. This cannot be destroyed because it is essentially Himself.
>

Why does Brahman 'reflect' in anything, if not for creating and managing
the world? When you say parA maya, it is relative to apara maya.  When the
apara maya is negated, there is no name that is valid as para maya and
therefore no Ishwara that reflects in it.  After all, Shankara has said
'with these two prakrtis, para and apara, the causehood is occasioned.'
When the prakRti is negated 'bhUtaprakRtimokSham' in the 13th chapter last
verse, there is no place for a cause of the world which has the designation
called Ishwara.

In the case of the person in the sun etc., it is obvious that the name and
> form are viseshas.
>

All this is not at all connected with the topic.  You are straying away
from the central theme.

>
> We don't see that Jiva is called Saguna Brahman. They are also Brahman +
> Viseshas only. This term is reserved for Ishwara though they are equated.
> This
> is not without a reason. In the case of Jiva, it is reflection of Brahman /
> Ishwara / Prototype Jiva (eka jiva vada) on the mind, which is a product of
> apara maya. In the case of Ishwara, it the reflection of Brahman on
> Paramaya, which is non-different from Himself.
>

You are missing the point here too.  You fail to understand the meaning of
sa-vishesha. In Advaita just as the jiva is sa-vishesha, Ishwara too is. As
so many of the members have made it clear, Iswara in truth, like the jiva,
is brahman.  Ishwara as an office is not Brahman.  That is why it is
clearly negated in the Mandukya seventh mantra.  It is only when you
undergo a thorough study and obtain an understanding of the Mandukya method
will you appreciate this.  Till then there is no point in carrying on this
discussion for you keep holding on to the un-advaitic and un-sampradayic
notions about Ishwara.

>
>
>  The relative conception of Ishwara with reference to Jiva and Jagat is
> sublated, not Ishwara who is non-different from Brahman.


You are again not getting the Advaitic method here.  Ishwara has a role and
relevance ONLY in the jiva-jagat scenario.  When this is negated, there is
no place for an office called Ishwara.  As chaitanya even the jiva is
non-different from Brahman.  As 'sat' even the jagat is not different from
Brahman.  But as aupAdhika the jiva and jagat are not brahman so too
Ishwara, the mAyopAdhika.



> In 14.27, Sankara clearly says tat Inner Self is the Supreme Self.


The sentence you are referring to is not what you think it means.  By the
word 'pratyagAtmA' there (inner most self) it is not meant in the
jiva-brahman identity way.  In the Chandogya upanishad there is a
statement: Where is this Brahman established? Reply: In its own glory.  The
Gita bhashya you are referring to is on similar lines.  Brahman is saying,
personified, that 'I am the innermost self of Brahman'.  This does not
support your theory on Ishwara.  Shankara does not give the usual meaning
for the word 'pratiShThA' there.  Only in the later part of the bhashyam He
takes up the word for two explanations.

//There are countless verses that say that Ishwara is the Inner Self. //

You have failed to recognize the difference in the meaning given for the
word 'Ishwara' in such places as different from the usual meaning attached
to the word as jagatkaaraNam/karmaphaladAtA, etc.  No scripture or Shankara
would ever equate the sOpAdhika Brahman and the Inner self.  None has
taught the aupAdhika Ishwara as the inner self. If you disagree please
enumerate some six from the countless verses to prove your point.

//The whole theory that Ishwara is non-self is bogus. If He is non-self,
what is He - jadam? Then you become a sankhya and accept Prashant as the
cause.  [it is not prashant but pradhanam]//

There is no point in continuing discussing with someone who has no value
for even Shankara's statement in the Kenopanishat bhashya where there is
the explicit statement about Ishwara being anAtmA and therefore not the
Brahman taught in the Upanishad.  This is the ultimate and incontrovertible
proof for this Advaitic siddhAnta.  You have not been able to say anything
against this statement of Shankara since it directly cuts at the very root
of your misconception of the concept of Ishwara in Advaita.  I know this
Shankara-statement is very uncomfortable to your stand. You are carefully
avoiding this statement and continue with arguments that are only based on
the fundamental misconception about Ishwara in Advaita.  If you have any
wish to continue with your theory first disprove Shankara's Kenopanishat
bhashyam that I have quoted before.

I would like to see your response to this Kenopanishat bhashyam for my next
response in this thread. Till then I shall take a holiday from this
thread.


subrahmanian.v

>
>