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

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

> It is IshanashIla and not Ishwaranila (which was corrected long back).
> Again, it is only the fundamental Lordship which is not Bhagavan as a
> saguNa brahman.


RV: I corrected but sometimes previous record replays. My teacher used to
say that when chanting, I say devanahum instead of devanagum knowingly. I
totally agree it is important to get each word and syllable right. It is
equally if not more important to get fundamental concept right especially
on a key topic such as Ishwara without whose anugraha there is neither
Bhakti nor jnanam. What is this "fundamental lordship" that you talk about?
Nirguna Brahman cannot be said to have any type lord ship as Turiya unless
it is admitted to be non- different from Him. Please where Sankara
Himself talks about such a "fundamental lordship" in Turiya that you do. We
can't superimpose later day views on Sankara.

Also, please refer to my response to Sri Bhaskar on TuriyAteeta.
>
>
> Here Brahman is vivartopAdAna karaNam.  Just like a rope can appear
> as snake, a garland, a creek, a stick and so on, Brahman appears as jiva/s,
> Ishwara, world of objects, etc.


RV:  Please show me a reference to say that Brahman is vivartopAdana
karaNam for Ishwara. And why Ishwara is not vivartopAdana karaNam for
jagat? This appearance is superimposed on Vishnu because Vishnu does not
undergo transformation like clay does in becoming a pot or milk in becoming
curd. Sankara quotes MBh, BhG, MU and VP in VSBh (pg. 63 adyar publication
1999) to say that the world is nothing but Vishnu, the deity who is the
bhutatman, indriyatman, pradhanatman, atman and paramatman.

If Brahman is karaNam, in any way, it has to be indeed mithya.

>
> It is only with a view to posit an Ishwara the concept of mAyA is
> admitted.  With mAyA it is possible for Brahman to be posited as Ishwara,
> the wielder of mAyA.


RV:  admitted? Maya is a construct in sastras and an astika has to admit it
unconditionally. Please show me a sastra or bhashya reference to say that
maya is admitted only to "posit" an Ishwara. The world is an appearance
created by Vishnu not that Vishnu is an appearance created by the world, at
least for theists.

>
> nirupAdhika Brahman can be the fundamental adhishThAnam on which jiva,
> ishwara, etc. appear.  That way nirupAdhika Brahman is IshanashIlaH.
> nArAyaNa etymologically can mean the abode of all people...with different
> upAdhis - both low and high.
>
> RV: In BhG Ch. 15, Sankara is talking about nirupadhika Brahman. If such a
Brahman or Narayana you accept can be an abode of all people and
ishanashila, we are saying the same thing indeed.


> ...this Ishwara is
> what is negated as not being the absolute turiya.


RV:  Please refer my response on TuriyAteeta.

>
> 'nArAyaNa' has different meanings and depending on the particular
> sannyasi's temperament/evolvement the smRti too varies.
>
> AtmarAmas being devoted to VishNu is a case of 'pUjArtham kalpitam
> dvaitam...' which we have discussed earlier.
>
> RV: Where does Sankara Himself say "pUjArtham ...". Even Madhusudana does
not seem to say that. What is special about the "ignorance" called Bhakti
that you can  consider it superior to Advaya jnanam? Bhakti for
atmaramas is possible only as a. a continuance of pura vasana and b.  when
we admit that His manifested qualities are of the blissful nature of
pure consciousness.