[Advaita-l] Re: Ishvara in advaita vEdAnta

[Amuthan]

namo nArAyaNAya!

dear shrI siddhArtha,

On 11/24/06, Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy <annapureddy_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's take just this one case into consideration. Your claim is that there
> could exist 'eternal' lOkas, as eternality itself is a notion within mAyA;
> in other words, there could exist someone like a shrI mahAviShNu in
> vaikunTha. My objections are as follows:
> -- The analogy of the magician and his illusion fails (as I mentioned in my
> earlier mail. Of course, this by itself is not a strong reason, but it does
> suggest that Ishvara ought to refer to the nirguNa brahma and not an entity
> within the vyAvahArika world.)

AchArya does in fact use the magician-illusion analogy. for instance,
in his dakShiNAmUrti stotra, he writes '...mAyAvIva vijRmbhayatyapi
mahAyogIva yaH svechChayA' (2). the difficulty in understanding this
arises only when we miss the fact that Ishvara can project the
universe from his arUpa aspect itself. the forms and lokAs of Ishvara
that exist are for bhaktAnugraha. they exist eternally.

btw, the dakShiNAmUrti stotra is a wonderful work which deals with
almost all the questions regarding Ishvara that we are discussing
here. it is interesting to note that AchArya praises dakShiNAmUrti as
both the pratyagAtman ('jAnAmiti tamevabhAntam' etc.) and as having a
particular form ('... yo mudrayA bhadrayA', '... charAcharAtmakamidaM
yasyaiva mUrtyaShTakam' etc.)

On 11/24/06, Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy <annapureddy_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> -- Nothing in the vyAvahArika world could be nitya,

what about 'time'? it surely has existence only in vyavahAra. it
cannot be anitya since to assert that something is anitya presupposes
the existence of time.

On 11/24/06, Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy <annapureddy_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> -- First objection: Why does this entity Ishvara not want to merge with
> nirguNa brahma? There could not be remnant karma for Ishvara like in the
> case of a jIvanmukta.

only if there is avidyA, the notion of difference from brahman exists.
since brahman itself assumes the form of Ishvara using it's
anirvachanIya mAyA shakti, the above question is not valid.

On 11/24/06, Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy <annapureddy_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> -- Second objection: This Ishvaratva becomes a parallel goal along with
> nirguNa brahma. For example, one can try to attain Ishvaratva or merger with
> shrI mahAviShNu, rather than merger with nirguNa brahma. If one has the
> capability to attain nirguNa brahma, what prevents one from attaining
> Ishvaratva? What advantage is there in attaining nirguNa brahma, rather than
> Ishvaratva? Even if we assume that one does not have the capability of
> merging with Ishvara in the above sense, the first objection still stands.

Ishvara sAyujya, sArUpya etc. are accepted as part of kramamukti.
those who desire the respective lokAs reach the respective lokAs by
appropriate efforts. the final goal however is kaivalya. it is final
since that is when complete avidyochCheda happens.
-------------------------------------------
dear shrI jagannAthan,

On 11/24/06, jagannathan mahadevan <jagannathan.mahadevan_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >From the second part of the verse, we can infer that the Ishvara is a
> modification of Atman by mAyA.

there is no real modification. it is we who superimpose sarvaj~natvAdi
guNAs on brahman and call this brahman conditioned by mAyA as Ishvara.
this Ishvara is the same as jagad/dRshya kAraNa.

-------------------------------------------
(a minor note: i would like to correct a typo - i had unknowingly
typed dRShya for dRshya throughout my previous mail.)
-------------------------------------------

gurave shrIdakShiNAmUrtaye namaH,
aparyAptAmRtaH.