[Advaita-l] How do you explain this?

[H S Chandramouli]

PraNams Sri Sadananda Ji,

Reg << The second one is Iswara as saguna Brahman who is karaNam- kaaraNam
kartaa, etc. sarvajnatvam and sarvashaktitvam, antaryamin etc all at this
level I suppose - here dRisyatvam is more valid as we are fully in the
vyaavahaarika level. >>,

Yes. But with a caveat. At the vyAvahArika level, this is mithya only, with
Brahman (minus mAyA) as the satya adhishthAna, including Iswara and all
other jIvAs. That is because Brahman is ajnAta at this level, both in the
role of Iswara as well as in the entire dRishya prapancha, and remains
uncognized. For example, in sushupti, wherein dRishya prapancha is absent
but still Brahman remains uncognized. On the other hand, Brahman is the one
and only Conscious entity, obtaining in and thru the entire dRishya
prapancha, including all the other jIvAs. This is in contrast to other
darshanAs which postulate multiple Conscious entities. From this standpoint
of Consciousness (Brahman),  Iswara and all other jIvAs are all satya only,
being Brahman only. Hence the advaitic sidhanta in a nutshell

<< श्लोकार्धेन प्रवक्ष्यामि यदुक्तं‌ ग्रन्थकोटिभिः|
ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्या जीवो ब्रह्मैव नापरः || >>

<< shlokArdhena pravakShyAmi yaduktaM granthakoTibhiH|

brahma satyaM jaganmithyA jIvo brahmaiva nAparaH || >>.

Thus, Iswara (and other jIvAs) can be considered as satya or mithya
depending upon standpoint. But all other entities in dRsyaprapancha, namely
jagat, are mithyA only.,



Regards

On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 3:35 PM kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Chandramouliji - PraNAms.
>
> You seem to be zeroing in in terms of the explanation. First one as you
> mentioned may be taTastha lakshnam - including the dRisyatvam aspect.
>
> The second one is Iswara as saguna Brahman who is karaNam- kaaraNam
> kartaa, etc. sarvajnatvam and sarvashaktitvam, antaryamin etc all at this
> level I suppose - here dRisyatvam is more valid as we are fully in the
> vyaavahaarika level.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Hari Om!
> Sadananda
>
>
>
>
>
>
>