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

[V Subrahmanian]

I am quoting here, with thanks, a portion from a post from Sri.S.N.Sastri
ji in the Advaitin forum today which is relevant to the current discussion
here:

//The following statement  in Shankara's bhAShya:--

In the Bhashya on Br.up.3.8.12 it is said: "What is the difference among
them(among Brahman, Ishvara and jIva)? It is only due to the difference in
the limiting adjuncts. Intrinsically, there is neither difference nor
identity among them, for all the three are in essence Pure Consciousness,
homogeneous like a lump of salt. When the unconditioned Self has, as the
limiting adjuncts, the body and organs which are characterized by
ignorance, desire and action, it is
called the transmigrating individual self (jIva). When the limiting adjunct
is the power of eternal and unlimited knowledge, which is Maya, the same
Self is known as Ishvara, who is the antaryaami or Inner Controller. The
same Self, free from all limiting adjuncts, is Brahman. When the limiting
adjuncts are the bodies of Hiranyagarbha, the gods, men, animals and
others, the same Self assumes those particular names and forms". //

A reading of the original bhashya will provide one with the necessary terms
used in Advaita shastra to denote these:

कस्तर्हि भेद षाम्? उपाधिकृत इति ब्रूमः; न स्वत षां भेदः अभेदो वा,
सैन्धवघनवत्

 प्रज्ञानघनैकरसस्वाभाव्यात्, 'अपूर्वमनपरमनन्तरमबाह्यम्' 'अयमात्मा ब्रह्म' इति
च श्रुतेः --- 'सबाह्याभ्यन्तरो ह्यजः' इति च

 आथर्वणे। तस्मात् निरुपाधिकस्य आत्मनो निरूपाख्यत्वात् निर्विशेषत्वात्
एकत्वाच्च 'नेति नेति' इति व्यपदेशो भवति;

 अविद्याकामकर्मविशिष्टकार्यकरणोपाधिः आत्मा संसारी जीव उच्यते;
नित्यनिरतिशयज्ञानशक्*त्युपाधिः* आत्मा अन्तर्यामी ईश्वर उच्यते; स एव *निरुपाधिः
केवलः शुध्दः स्वेन स्वभावेन अक्षरं पर उच्यते।* तथा

हिरण्यगर्भाव्याकृतदेवताजातिपिण्डमनुष्यतिर्यक्प्रेतादिकार्यकरणोपाधिभिर्विशिष्टः
तदाख्यः तद्रूपो भवति।




subrahmanian.v

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <
svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote:

As things stand, you have provided ample room to conclude
> that you do not have the first clue as to what is really meant by
> nir-viSeshatva of brahman.
>


> Vidyasankar
>