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

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:41 PM, <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> In 16.14, ishwara means the lord only. It is condemned as asuree bhava
> because it is a false thinking.


That is the mistake the non-advaitins make and show this verse as an
admonition from Bhagavan Krishna of the mistaken Advaitic teaching 'aham
brahma asmi' (actually in Advaita the identity is of the pure consciousness
only and not one between the jiva and the saguNa brahman, Ishwara. )


> In reality, he (e.g. Hiranyakasipu) doesn't think that there is ishwara
> (anisvaram, apratishtam - 16.8). This is very different from the upasana
> gopalaham referred to in gopala tapani upanishad.
>
> In 18.43 also ishwarabhava is used to refer to lordliness only.


This may be your view but such is not the teaching of the Lord.


> We can't forget that a kshatriya is considered Vishnu on earth.


Even a brahmana is considered bhUmideva or bhUsura.  The Lord does not
teach in the same chapter that bhUdevatvam is a trait of the brahmaNa.


> I'm afraid your thinking comes from the contingency of the use of Ishwara
> given in gaudapakarika, BhG 15 and BhG 8 with respect to nirupadhika
> brahman.
>

The 18.43 and the above two are not connected. In the above instances and
in the Ishopanishad first mantra it is the universal lordship that is
mentioned as the underlying principle, the vivartopaadaanam, of the entire
universe.  In fact in the Ishopanishad the bhashyam is: one should
'cover/drape' the entire created universe with the realization 'I am
Brahman'.  Surely this is the correct Vedantic teaching and not 'I am the
saguNa Ishwara.'  Those who have studied the Advaita vedanta under
sampradaya acharyas and have the benefit of the global view of Advaita
vedanta alone can appreciate this and will quickly understand the
difference.  Those who do self-study of the bhashyam in bits and pieces
will find it extremely difficult to shed their preconceived notions.


subrahmanian.v