[Advaita-l] Re : Ishwara swarupam

[nishanth]

On 14 April 2012 13:47, nishanth <rope.snake+garland at googlemail.com> wrote:

>
> Salutations,
>
> Just reposting the three articles since the URL was muddled from Shyamji's
> email:
>
> Ishvara Real ?
>
> http://www.adi-shankara.org/2007/09/does-advaita-consider-ishwara-real-or.html
>
> sRShti
>
> http://www.adi-shankara.org/2007/02/srshti-we-cognize-is-in-perfect-order.html
>
> Ishvara and Brahman
> http://www.adi-shankara.org/2008/04/ishwara-and-brahman.html
>
>
>
>
> On 14 April 2012 08:55, Shyam <shyam_md at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Some old essays of mine that may be of interest in the context of the
>> ongoing discussion.
>>
>> http://www.adi-shankara.org/2008/04/ishwara-and-brahman.html
>>
>> http://www.adi-shankara.org/2007/09/does-advaita-consider-ishwara-real-or.htmlhttp://www.adi-shankara.org/2007/02/srshti-we-cognize-is-in-perfect-order.html
>>
>> Hari OM
>> Shri Gurubhyo namah
>> Shyam
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>  From: Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
>> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
>> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 8:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Re : Ishwara swarupam
>>
>> On Friday, April 13, 2012, amith vikram wrote:
>>
>> > . For one who asserts the ishwara with name and form to be
>> > paramarthika, It doesn't really matter if maya is an upadhi or not.
>> >
>>
>> I did not assert that but it is easy to say Ishwara is formless without
>> understanding what is form and formlessness. At a simplistic level, we
>> think of form as the shape of an object and if an object has a contour, we
>> say hat it has a form. We think of an object as formless if it does not
>> have a contour. However, if we ask ourselves whether space has a form, we
>> have to say that it does not because we can't see its infinite contour.
>> But
>> space is nevertheless an object of perception and nothing can be so unless
>> it has a form. We thus have an indeterminate answer to the question
>> whether
>> space has a form or not. This indeterminacy affects all objects contained
>> in space because if space has form then you cannot have a formless object
>> within space as such an object's contour will be the contour of the
>> enclosing space itself. Also, as all objects exist relative to others in
>> space, if we concede that there exists an object within space then we have
>> to concede that there can be no object without form ecause the former will
>> limit the latter. Thus we conclude that we do not know through direct
>> experience formlessness except as the logical opposite of form that we
>> know
>> through direct experience. As formlessness is an attribute of objects,
>> though not seen, we have ask what is the form of formlessness? Also, forms
>> themselves are relative to the level of abstraction of perception. The
>> contour of a pot is no longer there when examined with a lense as the
>> contour of the clay particles supersede the former. Here arises the notion
>> of formlessness of form. We need to understand these basics before we talk
>> about Ishwara's form or formlessness. Is it not?
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>
>