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

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

Dear Srinath,

I am only responsible for what I say and not what you (mis) understand. The
Ishwaroham buddhi of 18.16 is like that of Hiranyakashipu etc. who falsely
thinks I am Ishwara. In reality, they dont believe in Ishwara or Sanatana
Dharma of the Vedas (anIshwaram apratishtam 18.8). That is why
Hiranyakashipu was asking Prahalada to show him Vishnu and also indulged in
adharma. This is very different from uttama bhakti of Prahalad. As a jnani,
he realizes that the Self is the only reality. He sees the form of the Lord
Narasimha, or any divine from in the Vedas, as having the qualities of
elements though not a created from them, not a result of karma, a form
 that reflects pure consciousness in an unobtructed way, eternal as it is
maya rupam but not an effect of maya and Brahman, Self. On the other hand,
he will see material objects such as pot as made of five elements, a result
of karma, a mere appearance wih predominance of sattva, rajas or tamas, an
effect of maya and in reality Brahman, the Self. Both - the form of
Narasimha and that of a pot - he says as the Self but the difference is
obvious. Those who see the Lord as different from themselves, though humble
and noble, do not realize that there is nothing other than the Lord. If
there is anything or anyone other than the Lord, then He is limited by
that. Madhusudana gives Prahalada and Gopis as examples of Uttama Bhakti of
a Jnani who thinks I am He in 18.66. There is a difference between
nitupadhika ishwara of 8.3 and 15.17 is different from Hiranyagarbha, who
is sopadhika or apara brahman.  Sankara differentiates between the two in
BSB 2.1.14. The former is nirguna and all names and forms are contained in
Him. He is beyond names and forms - homogenous. The latter is saguna and
assumes names, forms and qualities such as sarvajnatvam, rulership over
objects - sentient and insentient.

Best Regards
Rajaram Venkataramani



On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha
<svedagarbha at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 8:24 AM, V Subrahmanian
> <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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
>
> I hope you are not implying Madhusudhana is a non-advaitin!. This is
> because this whole conversation originated from Madhusudhana's
> position that Advaita is non-dualistic theism.
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> Again, are you indirectly saying Madhusudhana is one such person and
> did not understand the sampradAya? One wonders.
>
> /SV
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>