[Advaita-l] Supreme Brahman - the Ruler in Advaita?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> explains Madhusudana in BhG 4. Advaita, therefore, is absolute non-dual
> theism not monism.
>

I think the term 'non-dual theism' is a word without anything to
substantiate its use.  Theism is defined by the Merriem webster dictionary
as:
// belief in the existence of a god or gods; *specifically* *:* belief in
the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race
and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world//

If we want to adopt the term theism to describe Advaita, then we have to
allow a world that is created by God, the Creator.  But in advaita there is
no world in absolute terms; it is mithyA and does not have a real
existence.  Brahman alone is the sole Reality according to Advaita.  The
moment we admit of a theism, then necessarily there comes in a
deity-devotee relationship which is eternal, even continuing in moksha,
according to the theistic schools of vedanta.  Such  a relationship
essentially is dualistic and can never be non-dual.  Even if one were to
give up the relationship, then, still, to maintain the term theism, we need
to have at least the created world subsisting eternally.  Even this is
denied in Advaita as there is no world in paramartha.  Thus a 'non-dual
theism' is a misnomer for Advaita.  Sri Madhusudana Saraswati, in his
invocatory verse for the Advaitasiddhi says:

मायाकल्पितमातृतामुखमृषाद्वैतप्रपञ्चाश्रयः
सत्यज्ञानसुखात्मकः श्रुतिशिखोत्थाखण्डधीगोचरः ।
मिथ्याबन्धविधूननेन परमानन्दैकतानात्मकं
*मोक्षं प्राप्त इव स्वयं विजयते* विष्णुर्विकल्पोज्झितः ॥ इति   ।

The verse says 'VishNu (Brahman) who is innately satya, jnana and sukha, is
the abode of the universe consisting of the unreal dvaita of knower,
knowing and known conjured up by mAyA, and owing to the
akhaNDAkAravRtti-based realization of His native Ananda svarUpa, being
freed from the apparent bondage shines as though liberated, free from all
the vikalpa-s.'

Thus there is no room for a theism in absolute Advaita.  Even the 'Vishnu'
is none other than the one appearing as jiva in avidyA.  When all the
vikalpa-s go, there remains no duality whatsoever.

Further, it is incorrect to attribute 'creatorship' to Brahman as such an
attribute is only world-dependent and not independently inhering in
Brahman.  Supposing there is a sports club in my office.  I can become its
secretary by virtue only of my being an employee of the office.  The post
is contingent on my continuing in that office as an employee.  The
secretaryship is not inherent in, svarUpa of, me.  It comes to me from
something extraneous to me.  In the same way when we attribute creatorship
and a host of all other guNa-s to Brahman, every one of them, without a
single exception, has to depend on the world or the jIva.  Thus, to have
all the guNa-s, the Lord, VishNu or any other, has to invariably be at the
mercy of the world-jiva-s.  Such attributes are really no absolute ones as
they do not belong to the Lord as Himself.

Thus, given the dependence of the world-jivas on Brahman for their very
existence/reality, the ONLY example of such paratantra satyatva being
rope-snake, the world-jivas have to be mithyA.  The attributes that accrue
to Brahman through such mithyA entity is never real to Brahman.  Thus, the
idea of absolute theism, whether dualistic or non-dualistic, is an
impossibility in Vedanta.

regards
subrahmanian.v



>
>
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:47 AM, kuntimaddi sadananda <
> kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Shree Rajaram - PraNAms
> >
> > nirupaadika
> > brahman or turiiyam in mantra 7 of Mandukya is the same as
> > satyam-jnaanam-anantam Braham - even the words- satyam-jnaanam-anantam is
> > only
> > from the reference of vyaavahaarika only - as Mandukya matra 7 says
> > -avyavahaaryam, agraahyam, advaitam, prapancopashamam etc. all
> descriptions
> > which cannot be described - for helping a saadhak to shift the mind to
> > grasp
> > the essence using viveka - and is only called fourth - chaturtam manyante
> > - in
> > relation to the three states. Even so called parabrahman - is only from
> the
> > point of vyaavahaarika only.
> > You
> > statement - that starts with - this parabrahma appears ... Any appearance
> > is
> > from vyavahaara point only and it involves upaadika not nirupaadika.
> Hence
> > it
> > is same as Iswara with maayaa as upaadhi. There is only vyaavahaarika and
> > paaramaarthika - the latter being absolutely real and sat. While the
> > former,
> > the vyaavahaarika involves as I said - Brahman + upaadhi - either at
> jiiva
> > level or Iswara level - anupravesha statement of the scriptures involves
> as
> > though entering into the upaadhi. avataara is brahman -as though-
> > descending
> > taking an appropriate upaadhi to solve a local problem. Hence Krishna was
> > located and as son of Devaki.
> > Personally I do not see any
> > problem in accounting the paaramaarthika and vyaavahaarika and if one
> > include
> > the individual mental projections - praatibhaasika.
> > In essence anything that has
> > property has finiteness associated with it. Nirguna brahman is pure
> > paaramaarthika only.
> > Hari Om!
> > Sadananda
> >
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: "rajaramvenk at gmail.com" <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >However, in this thread we are talking about nirupadhika brahman that
> > Sankara and Madhusudana talk about in BhG 15 and BhG 8. Just as Gaudapada
> > calls turiya as Ishwara, Sankara calls Him Ishanashila or Narayanana and
> > Madhusudana calls it Vasusdeva. This is a state of un-differentiated
> > knowledge or the state of Vishnu. This parabrahman appears as Krishna and
> > without becoming anatma. He takes the qualities of anatma when He appears
> > as jagat but not when He appears as Krishna. Any form is prakrta but His
> > form is apraktram, paramayarupam and pure consciousness. This nitya
> suddha
> > buddha mukta Krishna, the son of Devaki and Yasoda, is the garland of the
> > gopis who are jnanis.  Janaka attained jnana because of being a jijnasa
> > whereas gopis started as jnanis by being totally selfless and spontaneous
> > in their love for Krishna.  Some contemporary advaita scholars, jnanis
> > though they may be, don't recognise the position of gopis as did
> > Madhusudana. They think
> >  gopis went to Brahmaloka as do normal sadhakas. There is a huge
> > difference between worshipping Krishna as the Self and as non-Self. This
> > para-bhakti, which is advayajnanam, is non-different from Him, who is all
> > bliss, says Madhusudana.
> > >Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>