[Advaita-l] 'Ishwaro'ham' and 'IshwarabhAvaH'

Rajaram Venkataramani rajaramvenk at gmail.com
Fri Sep 20 04:59:13 CDT 2013

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:09 AM, balagopal ramakrishnan <rbalpal at yahoo.co.in
> wrote:

> Dear Rajaram Venkataramani,
> >>>This "fall down", "saviour" etc. are good initial sentiments.
> Examples are meant to convey certain aspect; not for enquiring further
> with 'whys' & 'hows'. It will lead to more confusion and also..

RV: The real difference between gold and gold plated jewelry will come out
only on scratching. We, as pursuers of truth, should not be afraid of
enquiry. If enquiry leads to confusion then our knowledge is muddled in the
first place. I understand that examples have limitations but when you say
we are "fallen", the lord is a "saviour", you are not using examples. You
are defining Ishwara and Jiva in certain terms. There is a specific reason
why acharyas such as Madhusudana use technical terms to define Ishwara and
Jiva in exact terms. In the theory of reflection, the reflection and the
reflected are non-different. The Lord is a reflection of Brahman on Vidya
aspect of Maya and Jiva is a reflection of Brahman on Avidya aspect of
Maya. As reflections are non-different from the reflected, they are
non-different from Brahman. The reflection of the Jiva on the different
minds is jIvabhAsa.  Or, the Lord is a reflection of Brahman on Maya, the
Mukhya Jiva is a reflection of the Lord on Avidya aspect of Maya and the
JivabhAsas are reflections of the Mukhya Jiva on the individual minds. (In
other schools of advaita, reflection is not real but jIvEshwarAbhEdA is
established differently). I know of no Advaita purvAcharya who thinks like
the neo-vedantins assert that His form is material. If you think such views
are supported by the tradition, please cite textual evidence.

> >>1. Is the lord's body made of five elements?
> >>2. Is the lord's body made of subtle elements?
> >>3. Is the Lord actually embodied as we are?
> Lord shortchanged the subtle and gross unlike me to appear. I see him
> embodied  because of my ignorance.
> RV:  You still did not answer in yes or no format. Please clarify what you
mean by short changed in clear terms. Do you agree with Madhusudana when he
says it is made of neither gross nor subtle elements? Or do you think it is
made of elements but not controlled by the laws of nature?  You are right
that He is not actually embodied but the appearance of His body is due to
His Maya not your ignorance. Please refer Madhusudana's commentary where he
also quotes Sankara's. If you think that as per Advaita His form is due to
your ignorance, then please cite textual evidence from the works of


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list