[Advaita-l] Shankara on non-Advaitic mokSha/Brahman

rajaramvenk at gmail.com rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Fri Mar 8 00:28:39 CST 2013

My understanding is that the concept of turyatita was to show that the fourth state is not even by count dependent on the other three states. It was not to show a difference between Ishwara and Brahman. Turyatita is a 12 century construct, if I am not mistaken. 

I have to underline the difference between dualist conception of Ishwara, which is different from Brahman and non-dual conception of Ishwara, which I say is non-different from Brahman. The space outside the pot is destroyed with the pot but not the one space which is known to be inside and outside the pot.  
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:46:18 
To: Rajaram Venkataramani<rajaramvenk at gmail.com>; Adiscussiongroupfor Advaita Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Reply-To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Shankara on non-Advaitic mokSha/Brahman

By saying that all you want is evidence from bhasyam to show that Ishwara is to be given up, you are cleverly demanding a statement  to pell out a distinction between  Brahman and Ishvara. I think that is not proper. What we can say at most is that if Ishvara is the state of Turiya, Brahman is "Ttiuriyatita", i.e., no state like Turiya can be attributed to Brahman.  

 From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
To: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Shankara on non-Advaitic mokSha/Brahman

On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

Auspiciousness is an attribute too. May be we can say "beyond attributes"
>Sunil KB
RV: My question to Sri Subrahmanian is why would the upanishad want to specify an attribute (auspiciousness) to negate attributes. If I say "Your are intelligent", it means you are. If someone says, "You are intelligent means that you are not intelligent, not that you are stupid but definitely you are not intelligent", then others will question such an interpretation. 
Also, Gaudpada defines Turiya as the changeless ruler capable of destroying all miseries. 
10 Turiya,the changeless Ruler, is capable of destroying all miseries. All 
other entities being unreal, the non—dual Turiya alone is known as effulgent and 
Regarding adhyaropa - apavada, Ishwara is the cause only through the instrumentality of maya. it is possible to negate cause (maya) and its effect (jagat) but how will you negate Him who is beyond cause and effect? When the pot (maya) is destroyed, there is no pot space (jiva) or great space distinct from the pot (ishwara) but how can you say that there is no great space (ishwara or brahman)? The subtle difference is that Ishwara is indestructible. All I am asking for is evidence from bhasyam to show that Ishwara is to be given up.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list