[Advaita-l] About the term in 'Ishwara' in Advaita - a brief note
rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Thu Apr 5 00:42:32 CDT 2012
In reflection theory, the reflection is is real, the only difference is
localisation. If you want I can pull out refrences fom Appayya Dikshitar
etc. though I dont have it handy. So, your conclusion on this basis is
As Ishwara is ever the Self an pure onsciousness only, your conclusion that
He is unreal is untenable on his ground also.
I don't think it is appropriate for me to comment on Swami Paramarthannda's
views. But as you are draghing him in to this discussion, I ask "If it is
the view of Sankara that God is unreal, why should he at all feel
uncomfortable about it? Killing Ishwara, the Self is not only kashtam but
also cause of" I will also remind you about another post by you where the
he said something like Ishwara, if He is atma, is real. The debate is not
about what you understood about Adwaitam from your teachers or what they
understood from theirs. We should talk about what Sankara's views with
On Thursday, April 5, 2012, V Subrahmanian wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Likewise, all this is Brahman on final analysis but this Brahman is
> > able to appear within vyavahara as Ishwara without losing His nature as
> > pure consciousness or the Self.
> > >
> > > Perfectly okay, but what is primary to the nature of ISvara? Is it pure
> > > consciousness or the appearing within vyavahAra? If you agree that it
> > > is the former, then your argument is about a distinction without a
> > > difference.
> > I think the only nature of Ishwara is pure consciousness.
> The Panchadashi (Swami Vidyaranya) says:
> मायाधीन: चिदाभास: श्रुतौ मायी महेश्वर: ।
> अन्तर्यामी च सर्वज्नो जगद्योनि: स एव हि ॥ (vi.157)
> The verse means: Shruti says that this (pure universal) consciousness
> reflected in Maya is Ishvara which controls Maya as well. The great Ishvara
> is the inner ruler, omniscient and cause of the universe.
> In Advaita both jiva and Ishwara are only reflections of Pure Consciousness
> in the reflecting medium called avidyA and mAyA. Just as an image
> reflected in a medium mirror is not held to be real, these two, jiva and
> Ishwara, are not held to be real. The image reflected in a mirror does
> have some uses, undoubtedly. But what is absolutely real is not the
> reflection but the original which gets reflected. Here we have the
> reflection, Ishwara, and the medium, mAyA. Both these are unreal being
> dependent on the Original Consciousness for their very existence. That
> which depends on something else's existence for their very existence is not
> absolutely real; they are unreal. The superimposed snake on a rope is said
> to 'exist' as long as the rope-knowledge has not arisen. What is the basis
> of the 'existence' of this snake? It is undoubtedly the underlying rope
> without which the very superimposition would not have been possible. The
> rope-existence is wrongly transferred to the snake and the vyavahara goes
> on 'there 'is' a snake there'. Similarly the shastra-superimposed Ishwara
> has no existence apart from the Pure Consciousness, Brahman. Being a
> reflection in the medium mAyA, which too has no existence independent of
> Brahman, Ishwara is held to be unreal in Advaita. Till there is
> Brahman-realization the vyavahara is sustained by this reflected
> consciousness Ishwara. Thus in Advaita there is no original consciousness
> to Ishwara; it is only a reflection dependent on the medium, mAyA. And
> that which is based on/dependent on Maya is not absolutely real. That is
> why Ishwara too is called 'chidAbhAsa', a reflection of Chit.
> > From vyavahara, we think He appears and disappears. This is caused by His
> > para maya, essentially non-different from Him. He does not become
> > during His appearance. He does not become unreal. He does not become
> > non-bliss. It is not like dualists assigning Him a reality equal to jagat
> > or slightly higher. She remains absolutely real because pure existence is
> > Her nature.
> All the bliss, reality and consciousness attributed to Ishwara derives from
> Pure Consciousness, sat-chit-ananda. Since Ishwara is an entity that has
> no existence independent of Brahman and Maya, no independent, natural,
> existence, bliss and consciousness can be claimed for Ishwara. Those who
> hold views different from this are talking as non-advaitins, outside the
> purview of Advaita. Advaita does not have place for such views. For the
> simple reason that there will then be no Advaita as taught by the Acharyas
> of the Shankara sampradaya. By imposing such alien views on Advaita one is
> only trying to make a fusion, an impossible marriage, between some other
> dualist school and Advaita; a hotchpotch concoction.
> > I am happy to be corrected as long as we don't (figuratively) kill
> > and Rama - bhashyam and god.
> We are actually killing Shankara (bhashyam) by admitting views that are
> alien to Shankara advaita. The idea of God is dependent on the idea of
> world. If there is no world ultimately, there is no God too ultimately.
> That is the core of Advaita darshana. Those Acharyas who opposed Shankara
> could not come to terms with this core Advaita and that is why they put up
> a God that has no risk of existence whatsoever. Someone bringing in this
> idea into Advaita is undoubtedly opposing Shankara.
> I recall a dialogue from Swami Paramarthananda's lectures:
> Tell me is God too unreal in Advaita?
> konjam kaShTamaathaan irukku (it is indeed an uncomfortable question to
> answer). But Advaita, without batting an eyelid, says: Ultimately God too
> is unreal. There is no way you can say the world is unreal and retain God
> as real. The two exist together and disappear together in Advaita.
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list