[Advaita-l] About the term in 'Ishwara' in Advaita - a brief note

Rajaram Venkataramani rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Thu Apr 5 14:59:07 CDT 2012

God save us! No, lets save God :)

The ocean was crying and running. A student enquired the reason. The oceans
said, "The waves are entering in to me. I will dry up." The student asked,
"How can that be?". The ocean pointed to a professor. The professor said,
"I did not say you will physically dry up but only logically". The student
asked,"How can that be?". The professor said,"The existence of ocean
depends on waves. If there are no waves, there can be no ocean - it is only
water". Though used to exist when no waves do as low tide, the ocean seemed
relieved, "I am water now, which means I will remain as such". The
professor said, "No. You are not water now because you are the ocean".  The
student asked, "How can that be?". The professor replied, "I am the
professor of oceanology". The student asked, "How can that be if oceans
don't exist?"

My serious response inset.
On Thursday, April 5, 2012, V Subrahmanian wrote:
> If anyone says something other than NirguNa Brahman is 'real' in Advaita it
> only means 'relatively real' and never absolutely real.  Thus, no Acharya
> in the Advaita tradition would support or endorse your view if you are
> saying/meaning that the reflection is absolutely real or as real as the
> original.

> It is an incorrect representation of the tradition. In pratibimba vada,
the reflection is held to be absolutely real. That is the basis in this
view to say that Isvara and Jiva are one. In abhasa vada, some say, that
the reflection is held to be unreal but I don't think so because even here
the reflection is admitted as consciousness. This does not mean there are
multiple realities but that one reality appears in multiple mediums without
losing its reality.

> यत एव चायमात्मा चैतन्यरूपो निर्विशेषो वाङ्मनसातीतः
> परप्रतिषेधोपदेश्योऽत एव *चास्योपाधिनिमित्तपारमार्थिकीं
> *विशेषवत्ताभिप्रेत्य जलसूर्यकादिवदित्युपमोपादीयते मोक्षशास्त्रेषु -
> It s the viseshas that is said to be not paramartika not the reflected
consciousness. By appearing in vyavahara, the pure consciousness does not
become achit. It is reflection not distortion especially when it is on
visuddha sattva, which is he case with Ishwara.

> No. Ishwara is never the Atman but the jagatkartA aupAdhika chaitanya.  It
> is in this context that this thread is proceeding. As such such an entity
> is unreal in Advaita.
> As far as I know, in all schools of Advaita Ishwara is said to be the
Antaryami or pratyagatma.

In BG 8.3, Sankara identifies the supreme Brahman, the Self, with Ishwara.
Sankara says, "Akshara means that which does not perish,the Supreme Self.
This agrees with the Upanishadic text, 'Under the mighty rule of this
Immutable! O Gargi (Br. 3.8.9).'" In 13.3, the Lord is identified with the
Self by Sankara - too long to reproduce here.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list