[Advaita-l] Ishwara Turiya?

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Monday, March 12, 2012, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 March 2012 16:55, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
wrote:
> <<Some people on this list, who attend traditional diiscourses
> regularly, were reluctant to even say that Saguna Brahman is in
> Turiya! They said that He is in susupti not differentiating between
> Ishwara and Hiranyagarbha! I hope it is their inability to learn and
> the tradition is alive. IMO, we should go by what sastras and Sankara
> say. Textual evidence is the key.>>
>
> Veiled attack ? :-)
>
> Vidyasankar has on at least 2 occasions pointed out that your
> questions are ill-posed. Strictly speaking, the question "is Ishvara
> turIya" is an absurd one. But I hope you at least realize that the
> question "Is Ishvara IN turIyAvasthA" is different from the question
> "is Ishvara turIya".

Gaudapada defines Turiya as the changeless ruler. Sankara says Isvara is
Turiya in BSB. Anyway, there is no room for illusory states such as
jagratha, svapna and susupti in the case of Ishwara. You are confusing
avyakta and Hiranyagarbha states with Ishwara.

> nirguNa brahman) and in that sense IN turIyAvasthA. Alternatively, one
> could say that every entity including aj~nAnI-s are IN turIyAvasthA
> because the turIya is the true svarUpa of all entities, including even
> Rajaram :-)

One can say anything one wants but my moha and soka will not go away by
such assertions. From a vyavahara perspective, there is a reality of
samsara, which has to be destroyed by knowing Him, the Self. It cannot be
achieved by reducing Vishnu, the self-effulgence Rudra, to the illusory
states. It can only be achieved through atma nivedhanam - then here is no
Rajaram, only Atmaram!

> In any case, going by the record of your posts on the list, one would
> only make a reasonable judgement as to what is it that you are asking,
> and I don't think that judgement was off the mark. Sri Subrahmanian
> has answered your questions admirably and I am in full agreement with
> him.
>
> In his last post to you, he has said exactly what I wrote earlier -
> that the 3 regular states have vyaShTi and samaShTi counterparts
>
> Waking: vyaShTi vishva & samaShTi virAT
>
> Dreaming: vyaShTi taijasa & samaShTi hiraNyagarbha
>
> Deep sleep: vyaShTi prAj~na and samaShTi Ishvara
>
I have responded to that. Samashti prajna is Avyakta, the sleeping state of
Hiranyagarbha. It is not Narayana, that Sankara describes as Avyakto paro
in line with hundreds of sruti and smriti statements.

> Anyway, I don't know what to say to a person who makes as absurd a
> statement as "saguNa brahman is nirupAdhika". Running out of
> adjectives, really...

How about adjectives such as follower of Sankara,Sureshwara, Madhusudana
etc.? They say that. It is incorrect to say that Maya limits Ishwara.
Instead of arguing with me and assuming your position is right, why don't
you talk to Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal or Sri Krishnamurthy Sastrigal. Tell
them that a new kid on the block says Advaita tradition has used
nirupadhika with respect to Saguna Brahman and see what they say. Trust me
- I do my home work :)