[Advaita-l] 'Ishwaro'ham' and 'IshwarabhAvaH'

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> > > RV: Ishwara is formless according to our sastras. He is also a container
> > of
> > > all names and forms. However, Ishwara's form is not made of material
> >
> >
> > There is a logical contradiction in your stance. If you accept that
> > fundamentally
> > ISvara is formless, then ALL forms are incidental and yes, all names are
> > forms
> > pertain equally to ISvara. A special ISvara's form, whether made of
> > material
> > elements or of something else, is not consistent with formlessness.
> >
> RV: What is something else if not para maya or pure consciousness? Do you
> accept that Ishwara's form is not material? It is not made of either gross
> or subtle elements. This much Madhususadana says unambiguously, right? Not
> long ago, scholars on this forum argued that the Lord's forms are material


Once more, patiently. An eternal form (albeit only till vyavahAra lasts) is not
consistent with formlessness. A form is what is called taTastha-lakshaNa. The
formlessness is svarUpa-lakshaNa. In any case, what people here (including
me) are taking issue with is your very notion of "eternality till vyavahAra lasts."
If you accept that vyavahAra has an end, then something that ends with it is
not eternal, by definition. What is really eternal is what persists beyond time
and across time, past, present and future.
 
Please do not latch on to one passage and draw your own meaning, ignoring
all the rest. There is an internal consistency across the works of a given author.
In the context of interpreting the bhagavadgItA, mahat, avyakta and ahaMkAra
come before the sUkshma and sthUla bhUta-s, e.g. chapter 7, verse 4-5. So,
these three are mAyArUpa and are part of the lower prakRti as well, but not
made of gross or subtle elements. Elsewhere as well (chapter 13), we learn of
two prakRti-s of bhagavAn, and we have bhagavatpAda's interpretation,
"prakRti-dvayavattvam eva hi ISvarasya ISvaratvam." In another verse in the
same chapter, we are also told "sarvendriya guNAbhAsa" and "sarvendriya
vivarjita", "asakta" and "sarvabhRt", "nirguNa" and "guNabhoktA." Put all
these together in thinking of the Lord's form(s). 

> 
> It would also be good to know if you agree or disagree with my arguments on
> sabda, words etc.
> 
 
No, let's leave that for a separate thread. One needs agreement on basics for a
discussion to happen.
 
Vidyasankar