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

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:33 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> So, there is no instrumentality at all on the part of the Turiya (called
> IshAna here).


RV: Why is Turiya specifically called Ishana here by Gaudapada? Ishwara has
been dealt with in sixth mantra. Here his state as changeless ruler is
highlighted. If there is any other reason, what is that?

>


> Brahman (not Ishwara) is the cause only through the instrumentality of
> mAyA.
>
RV: There are many problems in your statement. If Brahman is the cause,
then it has to be negated. Also, the question arises as to what type of
cause is Brahman as it cannot be either material or intelligent cause? The
third problem is who wields the instrument of maya? If it is Ishwara, then
He is the cause not Brahman. Brahman cannot be the wielder of the
instrument because He is actionless. This problem is solved when you accept
that Brahman and Ishwara are one.


> Here, the 'cause' is Ishwara for the world.  He is called 'abhinna
> nimittopAdAna kAraNam'. So, really Ishwara is not beyond cause/effect
> duality.  The sixth mantra of this very upanishad specifies the Ishwara as
> the cause.
>
RV:  If you say Ishwara is different from Brahman and is the cause of the
universe, then you have to either say that there are two causes for the
universe viz. Brahman and Ishwara or that your previous statement  "
Brahman (not Ishwara) is the cause only through the instrumentality of
mAyA" is wrong. Is it not?

>  When there is no kingdom/subjects there is no way one can be called the
> King.
>
RV: Shankara calls Narayana, who is nirupadhika, Ishwaranila in BG 15 Ch.

>
> In the pot called mAyA are both jiva and Ishwara representing the
> pot-space.  When the mAyA pot is
> destroyed the jiva-Ishwara defined pot space is seen as no different from
> the Great space that is Brahman (and not Ishwara).  The Panchadashi verse:
> mAyAkhyAyAH kAmadhenoH... is the most fitting one here.
>
RV: The above is true only in dualistic devotion where the pot-space and
external-space are seen as two entities not in the non-dualistic devotion
where it is seen as one space, the third stage of devotion.

>
> > All I am asking for is evidence from bhasyam to show that Ishwara is to
> be  > given up.
> >
>
A significant bhAShya sentence in this regard is:
>
> RV: What is negated as absolute are particular attributes of Ishwara
> conceived in relation to the world. Where is Ishwara Himself negated? Even
> a sanyasi is not asked to give up narayana smrti. Even atmaramas do not
> give up vishnu.
>