[Advaita-l] Supreme Brahman - the Ruler in Advaita?
rajaramvenk at gmail.com
rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Fri Apr 12 18:24:26 CDT 2013
With due respects to your scholarship, you are right but only partially I'm afraid. If you take all the upadhis, from jagat, jiva or ishwara, only brahman remains. If one does not accept that he is not an advaitin. We both also accept that Ishwara is Brahman with vishishtopadhi as Sankara explains in BhG 15. Surya, vaishnavara etc. or any devata that we can conceive of with a preponderance of sattva or visuddha sattva by super-imposing omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, majesty, grace, friendship, attractiveness, love etc. Is vishishtopadhika brahman. This is saguna brahman and his upasana is capable of giving citta suddhi, granting brahmaloka and by his anugraha even brahma jnanam effortlessly as madhusudana puts it.
However, in this thread we are talking about nirupadhika brahman that Sankara and Madhusudana talk about in BhG 15 and BhG 8. Just as Gaudapada calls turiya as Ishwara, Sankara calls Him Ishanashila or Narayanana and Madhusudana calls it Vasusdeva. This is a state of un-differentiated knowledge or the state of Vishnu. This parabrahman appears as Krishna and without becoming anatma. He takes the qualities of anatma when He appears as jagat but not when He appears as Krishna. Any form is prakrta but His form is apraktram, paramayarupam and pure consciousness. This nitya suddha buddha mukta Krishna, the son of Devaki and Yasoda, is the garland of the gopis who are jnanis. Janaka attained jnana because of being a jijnasa whereas gopis started as jnanis by being totally selfless and spontaneous in their love for Krishna. Some contemporary advaita scholars, jnanis though they may be, don't recognise the position of gopis as did Madhusudana. They think gopis went to Brahmaloka as do normal sadhakas. There is a huge difference between worshipping Krishna as the Self and as non-Self. This para-bhakti, which is advayajnanam, is non-different from Him, who is all bliss, says Madhusudana.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
From: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>
Sender: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:29:57
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Reply-To: kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com>,
A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Supreme Brahman - the Ruler in Advaita?
Shree Rajaram - PraNAms.
Just simply - the substantive of Iswara, jiiva and the jagat is the same as Brahman - since there cannot be anything different from Brahman, the infiniteness - by definition. Hence, is Iswara diffent from Brahman or same as Brahman? The same question again - Is ring different from gold or same as gold?
It is neither differnet or the same - bhinnapyabhinnaa ubhayaatmikaano.. says Vivekachudamani. Hence anirvacaniiya ruupa.
Iswara as vishiShTa chaitanya with all the qualifications is Brahman - as though- reflected in the maaya upaadhi. Iswara is Brahman + his upaadhi just as Jiiva is Brahman + his upaadhi; upaadhis of Jiiva and Iswara are different. The equation, tat tvam asi, involves dropping all viruddha upaadhis (intellectually) and recognizing that there is only Brahman at the substantive level- the pure unqualified or unqualifyable consciousness - prajnaanam Brahmna. This dropping of viruddha visheShaNas is called bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa - one can drop them because they are mithyaa.
Is Iswaara mithyaa or styaa - Qualified Iswara is mithyaa - unqualified substantive consciousness is satya. The same applies to jiiva too; only the qualificaitions are different. I can drop the notion of a ring and say it is just gold. The attrributes or visheShanaas of ring and bangle are different but the substantive gold is the same without those attributes of ring and bangle. Ring = Gold + ring upaadhi; Bangle = Gold +bangle upaadhi. What is substantive entity is only gold - the rest is name for a form. The same applies to Iswara and jiiva with substantive for both being Brahman.
It is just simple as that.
> From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
>. Is Ishwara mithya? The following is to show that is not the
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list