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

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

I did not display any "ingenuity" in "explaining away" the Kenopanishad
bhashya. Sankara points to these vidhis and  Kadalangudi Natesa Sastrigal
explains this in 1933 and kudos to him for looking ahead that this would be
useful 70 - 80 years later. Due to such great personalities, who worked
hard to protect the teachings of Sankara amidst financial difficulties, we
have the parama artha and ananda available to us. Otherwise, we will all
come to the conclusion that God is unreal according to Advaita
reinterpreting Sankara o Madhusudana.

If you don't differentiate between Hiranyagarbha and Narayana
(Parameshwara), then you have to say why Sankara does though both are
referred to by the term Ishwara. Their lordship, omniscience and
omnipotence are not the same though both have it. Hiranyagarbha is not the
Self of all while Parameshwara is. In BG 9.5, Sankara explains for "mama
atma" that the Lord is non-different from the Self. Madhusudana, in his
enviable style and clarity, gives the example of Rahu's head. I don't know
on what basis the learned scholars conclude that Ishwara is anatma.

There is upasana vidhi for soham bhavam.