[Advaita-l] Ishwara Turiya?

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Friday, March 9, 2012, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 March 2012 16:18, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
wrote:
> << But the negation of  tatastha lakshana of Saguna Brahman does not
> negate Saguna Brahman Himself. >>
>
> The point is that saguNatvam itself is taTastha. Once all
> visheSha-s/guNa-s are negated, only the nirvisheSha remains.
>
> At the highest level, your expression "taTastha lakShaNa of saguNa
> brahman" is self-contradictory.

For brevity, let us leave alone the implications of the terms Saguna
Brahman,  Brahman, Ishwara, Nirvisesha Brahman and Nirguna Brahman treating
the first three and the last two as usable interchageably. Leave alone for
the moment my understanding that the last three can also be used as though
they are synonyms. You would agree that even before creation and after
destruction, Saguna Brahman used synonymously with Ishwara exists. We (and
sastras) ascribe omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, creatorship etc.
to Him. This is tatastha lakshana that is negated in the absolute sense in
the BSB. But Saguna Brahman is not negated because  Ishwara has no origin
or death even as per Advaita. Also, Maya, His power that is non- different
from Him,is never negated. The viseshas manifested from the the
trigunatmika Maya has apparent origin and destruction but not the
trigunatmika Maya Itself.

Please answer my two questions posed earlier if your position is that
Ishwara is not Turiya.