[Advaita-l] Fwd: About Saguna Brahman / Ishwara

[Raghav Kumar Dwivedula]

Hare Krishna Bhaskara Prabhu ji
Regarding Subbuji mentioning that

NB + mAyA = Ishvara

While it’s true that NB cannot be part of any transaction or change….what
(I understand) Subbuji to be saying was that *adhyAsa* of mAyA is certainly
possible upon NB - and NB consequently appears as SB, the jagatkAraNaM.
Such attribution of kAraNatvaM is meant by the + sign.

Pedagogically we would say
Ishvara - mAyA = NB
I don’t think you would disagree with that? Although you could say NB
cannot be equal to anything…

But the additive inverse property was invoked by Subbu ji for *brevity’s
sake* and he wrote the equation you mentioned.

Om
Raghav






On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 at 11:56 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at hitachienergy.com>
wrote:

> praNAms Sri Raghava Kumar prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
> As you said-
>
> 1. NB + mAyA = Ishvara
>
> >  IMO there is no business like + or - in NB, when srushti / Ishwara is
> considered in srushti prakaraNa their ananyatvaM to be understood i.e.
> abedha between shakti and shaktivAn.
>
> 2. shakti or mAyA is the consort of the male Ishvara.
>
> >  Yes in puranic sense or from the upAsana point of view.  But from the
> vedAnta drushti as said above these are not two separate entities.  Do we
> say jyOti and prakAsha are two separate entities??
>
> it becomes tricky because on the upAsya side (statement 2) mAyA is not
> jaDa while in the technical sense (statement 1), mAyA is jaDa and Ishvara
> alone can be the cetaNa mAyIn.
>
> >  Yes in the context of devi-deva, both are Chetana-s (like husband and
> wife (shiva - Parvathy), mother and son (gowri-ganesha) upAdhi vishesha
> Chetana-s.  And in vedAntic scenario in srushti prakriya brahman is
> ekamevAdviteeya Chetana and this Chetana (shakti) is nothing but shakta
> (brahman).  As said above anayatvaM of Ishwara-mAya quite clear in srushti
> prakaraNa as sarvajnatva and sarvashaktitva quite inherent in brahman.
>
> To accommodate both Shiva and Shakti being cetaNa,  I read about the
> analogy somewhere  of a dancer when in fluid dance being Shakti and when
> holding a pose being Shiva. Not sure if there is any classical reference to
> this dancer in movement vs dancer is still pose,  analogy.
>
> >  bhAshyakAra himself gives the example of devadutta who sometimes
> stretches his limbs and sometimes folding his limbs, in both postures
> devadutta is same devadutta ONLY 😊 paramahamsa gives the example of coiled
> snake and moving snake.
>
> >  It is ONLY jaganmithyAvAdins or jagat bhrAti vAdins to propagate their
> sva-paksha vAda say something else other than what has been well
> established in shruti-smruti and bhAshya.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
>