[Advaita-l] Shankara on non-Advaitic mokSha/Brahman

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

>
>
> All that was said with a view to show that the Turiya is prapancha
> vilakShaNa.  And the most important reason why the seventh mantra is not
> referring to Ishwara is that it teaches 'such a Turiya' to be the Atman and
> the 'one to be realized'.  Surely the Advaitic realization as 'That am I'
> cannot be with Ishwara as 'That'.
>
> RV: there are are many places where atma is used to refer to Ishwara. In
certain forms of Upasana also, there are uses of identity - Gopalaham,
Sivoham etc.  The devotee meditates on himself as the instrument or shakti
of the lord and hence considers himself non-different. So, reference to
atma need not mean it is not ishwara. Oneness is not necessarily through
negation of attributes. Also, it is circular logic to say that brahman is
referred to in this mantra not Ishwara because our system says so. We have
to base the siddhanta on sastra not sastra on the siddhanta.

NAntaprajnam can be an attribute of ishwara also. You have not answered my
specific objection to use of this mantra to establish difference between
Brahman and Ishwara. Brahman, by  definition is devoid of attributes and
unconnected with maya in any way. But the mantra has terms that talk of a
Brahman in connection with qualities (peaceful, auspicious) and even the
world (dissolves in to it). That is my argument to say that Brahman and
Ishwara are not so different in Advaita. If Swami Paramarthananda has
addressed it, happy to learn and correct myself.