[Advaita-l] mithyaa / anirvachaniiya and asattva

[Rajaram Venkataramani]

On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 12:35 PM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> Why go as far as Ishwara when it is brahman alone that is experienced by
> everyone always:
>
> In the aparokShAnubhUti we have a fine verse:
>
> सर्वोऽपि व्यवहारस्तु ब्रह्मणा क्रियते जनैः ।
> अज्ञान्न विजानन्ति मृदेव हि घटादिकम् ॥ ६५
>

RV: This is similar to BhG 4.24. The ladle is Brahman, the oblations is
Brahman, the offering is poured by Brahman in the fire of Brahman. Brahman
alone is to be reached by him who has concentration on Brahman as the
objective. According to the commentary, it is a description of how an
advanced karma yogi sees every thing as Brahman. Ordinary people do not and
cannot see every thing as Brahman. Is there a difference between seeing
everything as Brahman and everything as Ishwara? According to modern
interpreters, may be there is but not according to Sankara. "The stars are
Vishnu, the worlds are Vishnu, the forests are Vishnu, the mountains and
regions are Vishnu, also the rivers and oceans; he is all that is and all
that is not, O best of Brahmanas! BhG brings out the same idea in the
verses from 10.21 : "Of Adityas, I am Vishnu" to the end 10.42 "Having
pervaded the whole universe with a portion of Myself, I exist. The sruti MU
2.1.10 says: "The Purusha is all this, sacrifice, penance, Brahman, the
Highest, the Immortal".


See the Vishnusahasranama bhashyam of Shankara for the word 'aprameyaH'
occurring in the very beginning.
RV: The commentary refers to Sakshi after describing the inability of
sastras to describe Brahman. It is not a problem for me because according
to me Brahman, Ishwara and Sakshi are categorisation of the absolute only
albeit from the vyavahara point of view. It should be a problem for you
because according to modern interpreters who see Ishwara and Sakshi as a -
brahman.