[Advaita-l] Supreme Brahman - the Ruler in Advaita?

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Sat Apr 13 06:11:13 CDT 2013

Shree Rajaram - PraNAms
You may say that Ishwara by definition is mayopadhika, though maya is trans-spacio-temporal limitations and anirvachaniya, where as Brahman is nirupadhika without any limitation - spacial or ordinary - of maya. And Brahman is the absolute not mayopadhika brahman, which is a reflection that exists only as long as one has not transcendend maya. This is where I am trying to point out that Nirupadhika Brahman by definition is Ishwara as Gaudapada Karika talks about with respect to Turiya. Sankara defines nirupadhika brahman as Narayana or Ishanashila in BhG 15. He defines akshara as Inner Controller in BhG 8. Madhusudana talks about Vasudeva and Krishna in the same context! We cannot reject the works of acharyas on their definition and still claim to adhere to their framework.The same nirupadhika brahman appears with a body of pure consciousness or of maya though in reality there is no body but only a transformation of the mind, explains Madhusudana in BhG
 4. Advaita, therefore, is absolute non-dual theism not monism. 
Sada: If you are saying the same thing that Iswara is nirupaadika and therefore same as Brahman–then we are only dealing with semantics. In Matra 7 of Mandukya . it also says Shivam, Shantam, Advaitam etc. 
Any further definition of Iswara with any other attributes including turiiyam or Narayana, etc., then you are in vyaavahaarika only. Please remember all terms including jnaanam, ajnaanam, jnaani, ajnaani, self-realization, and even Vedanta are all fall in the vyaavahaarika only since from paaramaarthika point it is ekam eva advitiiyam – no sajaati, vijaati, swagata bhedas. Jnaanam in the sense of pure cit is undefinable and what we can define is only jnaanam of x or y. pure jnaanam is neither viditam vaa na aviditam vaa – as said in Kena. 
Brahma satyam, jagat mithyaa and that include jagat kaaraka Naarayana too. All interpretations have to understood only from the point of the abovebasic facts. The rest I consider only as make us understand these fundamental truth but contextually presented to make the point across and should be properly understood under the guidance of a teacher. Hence a sampradaaya teacher becomes essential for not getting miscarried away by contextual statements by a particular teacher. Shree Vidyaranya says in dRikdRisya viveka - asti bhaati priyam ruupam naaman chaityanca pancakam| adhyatrayam brahma ruupam, jagat ruupam tathadvayam. 
All said and done, I am Sorry that I fail to understand where the problem is. I leave this to experts to address the issue further.
Hari Om!

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list