[Advaita-l] Ishwara Turiya?

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Monday, March 12, 2012, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Let the form of Ishwara not be material but it is not Turiya in any case.
> That is the point I wanted to make.  If anything is connectable to
> jagat/jiva then it is not Turiya in the true sense of the seventh mantra.
>
Please read one of your earlier posts where  you argued that Ishwara's form
is panchabautika or material on the grounds that if it is not then it has
to be Brahman because there is no third entity apart from matter and spirit
but it cannot be because the latter is beyond all names and forms. We have
to take a clear position on the nature of Ishwara as beyond Virat,
Hiranyagarbha and Avyakta. Then we have to equate Ishwara to Paramaya. Then
comes the acceptance of the particular manifestations such as Rama and
Krishna as Para Mayika, non-different from Him, the Self. Madhusudana
criticises those who ascribe difference between Ishwara and His form as
illogical. The changeless Ishwara, transcendent to names and forms, does
not create a form material or otherwise. By His Paramaya, He reveals the
bliss of Brahman by manifesting these forms in the minds of devotees.

> As has been clarified several times, Ishwara gets a place ONLY because of
> the world/duality.  If you remove duality by knowledge what you have is
> Ishwara, the shuddha chaitanya.
>
> I find that your meaning of the term Ishwara keeps shifting from time to
> time.  It toggles between the saguNa Brahman and shuddha chaitanyam.  In
> this post itself I have shown several instances of this.
>
Yes, rightfully so because they are not two different entities.
> I am just making a short comment on what you have replied to Sri
> Vidyasankar:
>
> //For viseshas such as Rama, Krishna, Linga etc., Paramaya, non-different
> from Ishwara,is the cause. I am not referring to the panchabautika bimbo
> created by us of
> Rama, Krishna etc., but to His avirbhava manifestation by His sankalpa.//
>
> If by 'parAmAyA' you mean the 'parAprakRti' that Bhagavan has stated to be
> His higher nature in the BG 7th chapter, then it is none other than Pure
> Consciousness which Shankara explains as 'kshetrajnalakShaNA', that which
> illumines the entire creation, kshetram.  And this is admitted to be
> without any vikAra-s.  But the Rama/Krishna and other bodies that the Lord
> took for various purposes did undergo changes/modifications.  The baby
> Krishna grew up to be a youth and later to be a father and grandfather.
 So
> too did Rama undergo several modifications.  Pure Consciousness is not
> admitted to be such.  Narasimha roared, ran hither and tither in the chase
> of Hiranyakashipu and slayed him.  I would not use the term 'perish' with
> these forms but certainly they are not shuddha chaitanyam which is
> nirvikAra/niShkriya.  To say the chaitanyam in Rama etc. was not affected
> when all these things happened to these bodies/forms is quite another
thing.

We cannot say His form is pramayika or pure consciousness and in the same
breadth say it is changeful. Ishwara did not undergo change as that is he
nature of matter not Paramaya. He manifested different forms and qualities
in our mind, which is within spacious-temporal realm, through His
changeless Paramaya. By this He made the impossible, namely the conception
of the bliss of Brahman, possible.