[Advaita-l] Ishwara Turiya?

Venkatesh Murthy vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Sat Mar 10 21:57:08 CST 2012


If Ishwara is in Turiya he has to be Ishwara of something or someone.
What is that? If there is something or someone like a Bhakta in Turiya
and Ishwara is ruling it there is no Advaita but Dvaita. There is a
ruler and there is a ruled thing.

 In Vyavahara he is ruling the world. But in Turiya there is no world.
What is he ruling? If he is not ruling anything you can call him as
Ishwara or anything. It is a name only without meaning. But if you are
calling Brahman as Ishwara there is no problem.

On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani
<rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Today, we have few posts and hope it is okay exceed the 2 mails per member
> per day quota!
> I will definitely appreciate the gloss to critically understand your
> argument and ensure it is in total alignment with Sankara and Advaita
> tradition. The reason I asked if it is unique to Bhamati, though I didn't
> think so as stated in my mail, is because Sri Bhaskar said it is Bhamati
> position. I also note that dedicated scholars such as Sri Subrahmanian hold
> that Ishwara is mithya and His "state" is not Turiya. Even Sri Vidyasankar
> (and Sri Ramesh) did not categorically assert that Ishwara is in Turiya.
> They seem to hold the view that He is called Brahman when in Turiya and
> called Ishwara, Hiranyagarbha etc., when within the three states. No one
> asked me why I would think Vishnu's (the one beyond names and forms) state
> is any less than the Supreme state (Turiya). It gives me the impression
> that there is a valid Advaita position that Ishwara (the saguna brahman
> beyond names and forms) is a step below the Parabrahman because of His
> association, albeit as a controller, with Maya. If none of the Advaita
> acharyas hold this view, what then is he origin of this concept I wonder?
> Frankly and hurtful though it may be, are you superimposing, inadvertently,
> the impressions from your Vaishnava background or do you hold that this is
> the correct official position of Advaita tradition to date?
> On Saturday, March 10, 2012, Antharyami <sathvatha at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hari OM~
>> Sri Rajaram,
>> I think you should go over the writing closely to critically understand my
>> argument. I would gloss it for you if you want.
>> Except for the two references - one to Brahma-siddhi paksa and a passing
>> reference to Bhamati, the rest of my exposition is purely with reference
>> and emphasis only to explain BhagavatpAda's position on Ishvara.
>> Further with regard to this issue there is no prakriyA bheda at all.
>> With Narayana Smrti,
>> --
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list