[Advaita-l] Ishwara Turiya?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy at gmail.com>wrote:

> On 9 March 2012 16:18, Rajaram Venkataramani <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> << But the negation of  tatastha lakshana of Saguna Brahman does not
> negate Saguna Brahman Himself. >>
>

Also it is to be noted that Shankara has explicitly stated that guNa-s are
'attributed' to/on Brahman 'for purposes of upAsana' and that therefore
they do not constitute the nature/svarUpa of Brahman.  That is the reason
why Shankara says that in the parmArthAvasthA Ishwara's Lordship itself
gets negated.  Brahman remains for ever the Nirvishesha when the
deliberately attributed, adhyAropita, guNa-s are negated, apavAda.

For 'tad viShNoH paramam padam' of the Kathopanishad 1.3.9 Shankara has
commented that it is the 'the superior-most abode of VishNu, the
vyApanashIla, all-pervading Brahman, the paramAtman, called vAsudeva, in
its TRUE sense, satattvam.'  This qualifying word is crucial: the saguNa
aspect is denied and the purified nirguNa Brahman alone is realized to be
one's true nature.  So, Shankara has desisted from giving any
saguNa-meaning for the term VishNu here.

Also it is to be noted, as we have done before too, that when it is said
that Ishwara stands negated it means that to the realized one the status of
Ishwara is only an appearance and not ultimately real.  For all the others
there is no such negation taking place and Ishwara has to be there 'for -
ever' to take care of their samsara.  The Jnani when teaching ajnani-s will
keep this twin-standpoint in mind.

subrahmanian.v

The point is that saguNatvam itself is taTastha. Once all
> visheSha-s/guNa-s are negated, only the nirvisheSha remains.
>
> At the highest level, your expression "taTastha lakShaNa of saguNa
> brahman" is self-contradictory.
>
>