# [Advaita-l] Re : Ishwara swarupam

Sat Apr 14 12:47:53 CDT 2012

```Salutations,

Just reposting the three articles since the URL was muddled from Shyamji's
email:

Ishvara Real ?

sRShti

Ishvara and Brahman

On 14 April 2012 08:55, Shyam <shyam_md at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Some old essays of mine that may be of interest in the context of the
> ongoing discussion.
>
>
>
> Hari OM
> Shri Gurubhyo namah
> Shyam
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 8:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Re : Ishwara swarupam
>
> On Friday, April 13, 2012, amith vikram wrote:
>
> > . For one who asserts the ishwara with name and form to be
> > paramarthika, It doesn't really matter if maya is an upadhi or not.
> >
>
> I did not assert that but it is easy to say Ishwara is formless without
> understanding what is form and formlessness. At a simplistic level, we
> think of form as the shape of an object and if an object has a contour, we
> say hat it has a form. We think of an object as formless if it does not
> have a contour. However, if we ask ourselves whether space has a form, we
> have to say that it does not because we can't see its infinite contour. But
> space is nevertheless an object of perception and nothing can be so unless
> it has a form. We thus have an indeterminate answer to the question whether
> space has a form or not. This indeterminacy affects all objects contained
> in space because if space has form then you cannot have a formless object
> within space as such an object's contour will be the contour of the
> enclosing space itself. Also, as all objects exist relative to others in
> space, if we concede that there exists an object within space then we have
> to concede that there can be no object without form ecause the former will
> limit the latter. Thus we conclude that we do not know through direct
> experience formlessness except as the logical opposite of form that we know
> through direct experience. As formlessness is an attribute of objects,
> though not seen, we have ask what is the form of formlessness? Also, forms
> themselves are relative to the level of abstraction of perception. The
> contour of a pot is no longer there when examined with a lense as the
> contour of the clay particles supersede the former. Here arises the notion
> of formlessness of form. We need to understand these basics before we talk
> about Ishwara's form or formlessness. Is it not?
> _______________________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>
> For assistance, contact:
> _______________________________________________