[Advaita-l] Ishwara Turiya?

V Subrahmanian v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Mon Mar 12 20:42:32 CDT 2012

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, March 12, 2012, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> > rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Please read one of your earlier posts where  you argued that Ishwara's form
> is panchabautika or material on the grounds that if it is not then it has
> to be Brahman because there is no third entity apart from matter and spirit
> but it cannot be because the latter is beyond all names and forms.

That might have been before I spoke to Dr.Sastrigal about this.  Still the
body of Ishwara is matter alone.  For Ishwara Himself takes it, remains in
it and leaves it at will.  It is 'this', 'idam' for Him too.  It is only
because Arjuna identified Krishna, Bhagavan, with His body, did he wail
inconsolably when Krishna'a avatAra sharIra had disappeared from this
world.  Surely Brahman can never appear and disappear, being all pervading
and ever existing.  That is why do we have a date for His janma, a navami
or ashtami.  That is the stand of Advaita with regard to any body.

> We have to take a clear position on the nature of Ishwara as beyond Virat,
> Hiranyagarbha and Avyakta. Then we have to equate Ishwara to Paramaya. Then
> comes the acceptance of the particular manifestations such as Rama and
> Krishna as Para Mayika, non-different from Him, the Self. Madhusudana
> criticises those who ascribe difference between Ishwara and His form as
> illogical. The changeless Ishwara, transcendent to names and forms, does
> not create a form material or otherwise. By His Paramaya, He reveals the
> bliss of Brahman by manifesting these forms in the minds of devotees.

All this does not have a valid Advaitic argument.

> >
> > I find that your meaning of the term Ishwara keeps shifting from time to
> > time.  It toggles between the saguNa Brahman and shuddha chaitanyam.  In
> > this post itself I have shown several instances of this.
> >
> Yes, rightfully so because they are not two different entities.

True the 'entity' is one only but we cannot mix sopAdhika and nirupAdhika
and interchange them at our whims.  That is the reason Shankara makes the
two separate and maintains the distinction at every instance.  As Bhaskar
ji pointed out, the sopAdhika Brahman is upAsya and leads to Brahmaloka.
The nirupAdhika Brahman is jneya, to be realized, and leads to instant

> We cannot say His form is pramayika or pure consciousness and in the same
> breath say it is changeful. Ishwara did not undergo change as that is he
> nature of matter not Paramaya. He manifested different forms and qualities
> in our mind, which is within spacious-temporal realm, through His
> changeless Paramaya. By this He made the impossible, namely the conception
> of the bliss of Brahman, possible.

This is exactly called 'aghaTita ghaTanA paTiyasI mAyA', making the
impossible possible.  See how you are getting into tighter and tighter
knots on this issue. You are not able to, with certainty, say whether the
body of Ishwara is Chaitanya or mAyika or bhautika  because you are unable
to overlook the changes/transformations this body underwent.  To say that
He introduced these manifestations in 'our mind' is nothing but dRSthi
srishti vAda where everything is one's own kalpana. Surely the dualistic
schools would not accept this.  Several people saw and interacted with that
body at that time. In order to introduce into Advaita the Vaishnava
concepts of avatara, paramaya, etc. which might have validity in their
schools which have different meanings for Pure Consciousness, you are
laboring so hard.  Advaita is very clear with its two-fold distinction: dRk
and dRshya.  The Consciousness that is everyone including Ishwara/Brahman
can never be dRshya, seen; it is ever the dRk, the seer, illuminer,
witness.  The dRshya, the illumined, seen, objectified, is never the dRk.
Surely the forms of Ishwara come under the dRshya category alone.  And in
Advaita whatever is dRk is jaDa, anAtmA.  Advaita is never at any loss
without these Vaishnava concepts on this matter. To force it on Advaita is
what is regrettable and avoidable.  The Kenopanishat explicitly denies
Brahman-status to the body of Ishwara which is upAsya, dRshya: nedam
yadidam upAsate.  It is only for the purpose of aiding the sadhana of those
who are unable to recognize the dRk does the scripture talk about/assigns a
form to Brahman.  Shankara says in the BSB: syAt parameshwarasyApi
icchAvashAt mAyAmayam sharIram sAdhakAnugrahArtham.


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list