[Advaita-l] About the term in 'Ishwara' in Advaita - a brief note

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Sri Ramanan,
 
To begin with, let me express my very pleasant surprise and gladness that you
have quoted sureSvara's vArttika here. For what it is worth, may I encourage
you to post more often along these lines? It is my strong belief, and I think 
many others would agree, that a close reading of naishkarmyasiddhi and the
vArttika-s will help elucidate matters very nicely.
 
> Surprised about the following comments -
> 
> "No scripture or Shankara would ever equate the sOpAdhika Brahman and the
> Inner self. None has taught the aupAdhika Ishwara as the inner self."
> 
> "So, Shankara does not agree with the idea that Ishwara is the
> pratyagAtman."
> 
> "No. Ishwara is never the Atman but the jagatkartA aupAdhika chaitanya...
> As such such an entity is unreal in Advaita."
> 
> BUBVartikam 40-43 and AG Tika seem to contradict all the three above:
 
> Vartika:
> "pratyagdhvAntaM cidAbhAsaM svakAryaniyamAtmakam |
> tadupAdhirniyantaiShaH paraH prokto *na tu svataH* ||"
> 
> Tika: " *kecittu nirupAdhikameva paramantaryAmiNamAhustAnpratyAha |
> pratyagiti |* cidAbhAsAkrAntaM pratyagaj~nAnaM
> svakiiyavivartaniyamanarUpamiShTameva tadupahitashca paramAtmA niyantocyate
> na svatastasya niyantRtvam nirvyApAratvAdityarthaH |
> *sopAdhikasyaivAntaryAmitvaM sphuTii kariShyati* |"

Here is the crux of the matter. As antaryAmI in each living being, the upAdhi-s 
taken over by the really nirupAdhika brahman are those corresponding to the
individual. Intrinsically, devoid of any upAdhi-s, there is no possibility of any
transaction for parabrahman (nir-vyApAratvAt). Therefore, nirupAdhika para
brahman is not directly called the antaryAmI. The pUrvapaksha being refuted
here is the position that says that the nirupAdhika parabrahman is directly the
inner controller (antaryAmI) of each being.
 
Who is the antaryAmI then? It is paramAtmA associated with the upAdhi of
the individual's ignorance and its effects (pratyag ajnAnaM svakIya vivarta ...
tad upahitaH). That Supreme (paraH) entity that is pure consciousness (cit),
appears in that form (AbhAsa), being veiled severally (pratyag-dhvAnta -
sureSvara's vArttika, pratyag ajnAna - Anandagiri's TIkA), with the upAdhi-s
created by its effects (sva-kArya ... tad upAdhi). Given the presence of the
upAdhi-s generated by this pratyag ajnAna, It is called niyantA, not by, in 
and of Itself (na svataH).
 
Note the upAdhi-s mentioned here are all at the individual level, not at the
universal level. antaryAmi-tva, niyantR-tva, is spoken of at the vyashTi, not
samashTi perspective. Recall BG and BGBh 7.5, where parA prakRti is said
to be jIva-bhUtA, prANa-dhAraNa nimitta bhUtA. It is in association with the
prANa-s of each individual being that brahman is said to be the antaryAmI
of each being.
 
ISvara, on the other hand, is then described in the next verse of the vArttika,
at the samashTi level, through the repeated use of the word sarva (all) and
by specifically mentioning the birth (jani), maintenance (sthiti) and destruction
(dhvaMsa) of the universe (jagat).

 
If ISvara as jagat-kartA/dhartA/hartA were directly intended to be described as
the inner antaryAmI of each being, then sureSvara and Anandagiri need not have
talked of the upAdhi of pratyag-dhvAnta/pratyag-ajnAna and its kArya at all.

> Vartika:
> "sarvaj~nassarvashaktishca *sarvAtmA* sarvago dhRvaH |
> *jagajjanisthitidhvamsahetur* eSha sadeshvaraH ||"
> 
> Tika: "nirupAdhikasya sarvaj~natvAdivadantaryAmitvamapi kiM na
> syAdityAsha^nkya dRShTAntasiddhimAha | sarvaj~na iti | sarvAtmatvAdau hetuH
> | jagaditi | atra ca sarvaj~natvAdi hetuH | sadAshabdaH sarvatra
> sambadhyate |"

Anandagiri continues with the pUrvapakshin's argument - brahman/ISvara, who is
really devoid of all upAdhi-s, is said to be omniscient (nirupAdhikasya sarvajnAtvAt);
like this (iva), why cannot we consider the inner controllership too similarly (kiM na
antaryAmitvam api syAt)? To respond to this, it is said, omniscience and omnipotence
(sarvajnas sarvaSaktiH) are because of sarvAtma-tva. The reason for this (hetu) is
jagat etc. Given the jagat, its birth, state and destruction (these are the samashTi
level upAdhi-s), that which is really nir-upAdhika is said to be omniscient (sarvajna),
omnipotent (sarvaSakti), omnipresent (sarvaga), stable (dhruva), ISvara (Lord).
Anandagiri further adds that the word sadA (always) is to be connected to each of
the above (sarvatra sambadhyate), although it occurs only once in sureSvara's
verse, unlike the word sarva (all).
 
> In the above, it is clearly stated by Suresvara/Anandagiri that it is the
> brahman endowed with (superior shuddha sattva) upAdhis who is the
> jagatkAraNa, sarvAtmA, antaryAmi, subject of discussion in the antaryAmi
> brAhmaNa, who is also described in Taittiriya mantras as the antaryAmi,
> vishva, the thousand-headed, vishvAkSha, etc. It is also stated clearly
> that nirupAdhika para brahman cannot be considered the antaryAmi.
> 
> I fail to understand how "sarvabhUtAnAm iishvaraH" and "iishanashiilaH"
> does not refer to the realm of the phenomenal world, when the phrase "Lord
> of all beings" admits plurality.

Yes, it does refer to the phenomenal world and "Lord of all beings" admits of all
the observed plurality of the universe. And yes, the nirupAdhika parabrahman is
not directly considered the antaryAmI. But who is the antaryAmI? It is sopAdhika
brahman, with the upAdhi-s being those corresponding to the individual. brahman
becomes the inner self, the inner controller, in association with the upAdhi-s of
each individual being. Who is ISvara? It is sopAdhika brahman, with the upAdhi-s
corresponding to the entire universe. Take away the individual upAdhi-s from the
antaryAmI and the universal upAdhi-s from ISvara and both are revealed as the
same nir-upAdhika, nir-viSesha, nir-guNa para brahman. The real reality of the
inner self, when seen devoid of the individual upAdhi-s, is the same as the real
reality of ISvara, when seen devoid of the universal upAdhi-s. 
 
I hope this explanation has been of some benefit.
 
Regards,
Vidyasankar