[Advaita-l] Is Isvara paramartika?

Rajaram Venkataramani rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Tue Aug 9 07:47:28 CDT 2011

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> The situation actually is no different from that of the jIva. Just as
> jivatvam is mithyA, so is Ishvaratvam. nirvisheSha brahman is the truth of
> both jIva and Ishvara and in that sense both jIva and Ishvara (when
> understood in terms of their true svarUpa as nirvisheSha brahman) are
> satya.
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
> Yes, that is well said, we cannot say sOpAdhika Ishwara is satya in his
> real svarUpa but sOpAdhika jeeva is not like that...From the absolute sense,
> contextually we have say either both Ishwara & jeeva satya or both Ishwara &
> jeeva mithya.  If we want to say Ishwara is satya and he is sakala kalyANa
> guNa saMpanna and his aprakrutika shareera is eternal, we also have to say
> jeeva,  his upAdhi, his karma, pApa-puNya also have the parallel eternal
> reality.  We cannot keep one satya intact and discard another satya because
> Ishwara's astitva & satyatva with his upAdhi-s is required the parallel
> existence of conditioned jeeva-s with upAdhi-s.

RV: We cannot assign same level of reality to Isvara, Jiva and Jagat. In the
aprakrta thread, we did see that Isvara's form is not made of material
elements whereas a jiva's is according Sankara and Madhusudana. There is
difference in names and forms in advaita. I hope modern advaita
teachers dont contradict what Madhusudana and Sankara say. If they do, let
us not change advaitam taught by Sankara and Madhusudana due to emotional
attachment to modern advaita teachers.

 I have given clear evidence from Sankara to show that Isvara can be without
any limiting adjuncts and still be Isvara (BG 15.17, BG 14.27). You are not
disagreeing with me but with them. I have also explained that Isvara's
existence is NOT dependent on Maya. His omniscience with respect to creation
is obviously relative. But His omniscience (actually undifferentiated
knowledge or jnapti) is non-relative because all names and form are in
Brahman as Brahman. I am reposting that.

 But the "omniscient Lord" is different from the names and forms. Sankara
asserts, "Different from them is the omniscient Lord himself, as we learn
from scriptural passages such as the following, 'He who is called ether is
the revealer of all forms and names; that within which these forms and names
are contained is Brahman' (Kh. Up. VIII, 14, 1);" This is because all the
names and forms are in Brahman as Brahman.  He is jnapti or undifferentiated

namāmi tvānanta-śaktiḿ pareśam
sarvātmānaḿ *kevalaḿ jñapti-mātram
yat tad brahma brahma-lińgam praśāntam (SBh. 10.63.25)

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list