[Advaita-l] Ishwara Turiya?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 3:14 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 3:13 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
> > rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> This is not correct.  According to Vedanta and even according to the Gita
> > without the Consciousness aspect contributing Itself along with mAyA the
> > transforming entity there is no creation possible.  मयाध्यक्षेण प्रकृतिः
> > सूयते सचराचरम् .  With Me as the Seer, Superintendent, Consciousness,
> > prakRti brings forth the world of sentient and insentient beings (moving
> > and unmoving).  So the Consciousness aspect is NirguNa Chaitanyam here.
> >
>
> Then we have to say that Nirguna Brahman is the Omniscient Lord because
> Sankara says so in his commentary to BG 7.6! Does Saguna Brahman have
> non-Consciousness aspect to Him? I dont think so because He does not have a
> body or mind. As you know, He is beyond Hiranyagarbha and Virata.
>

Even here you fail to see the difference.  It is Pure Consciousness that is
NirguNa Brahman that comes to 'somehow' associate with prakRti to engage in
creation. And saguNa Brahman is nothing but this Pure Consciousness plus
the upAdhi of creator, etc.

>
>
>
> > whatsoever any longer.  The very mAyAshabalitatvam stems because of mAyA.
> > When mAyA is known to be naught, there is a negation of everything that
> > depended upon this mAyA.
> >
>
> Only the bhinna prakrti or apara maya (the cause of samsara) is to be
> transcendended. After saying that para maya, svam maya, vaishnavim maya
> etc., non-different from Vishnu, we dont try to cross over that but realize
> our oneness with Him.
>

This kind of oneness is impossible in Advaita.

>
>
> Is Ishwara anAtma? Gaudapada has very carefully chosen the word Isha to
> define Turiya. Also, just because tarati shokam atmavit does not sayt that
> that it is possible to become an atma vit without the grace of Ishwara or
> that Ishwara is anAtma. The Lord, the innermost Self, is well known to be a
> swift reliever from the ocean of misery from the Gita. Also, it is said
> that by knowing Him one crosses the ocean of misery. So, Isha, the Lord,
> the innermost Self of all, is referred to in this verse. So, after negation
> of everything He remains. We cannot negate Hiranyagabha to a blade of
> grass, product of avidya, using jnana. By what will be negate Saguna
> Brahman, who is nirupadhika by definition?
>

>From the type of questions you come up with despite answers being provided
with the authority of the tradition/scripture, it is evident that you fail
to grasp the fundamentals.  Take for example the last question above: Where
is it said that SaguNa Brahman is nirupAdhika by definition?  Who has
defined it so?  The very concept of saguNa Brahman arises in Advaita ONLY
because it is sopAdhika.  Only the upAdhi makes it so.   And you say: //We
cannot negate Hiranyagabha to a blade of
grass, product of avidya, using jnana.//  Actually this is the very
objective of Advaita jnanam.  It is aimed at negating the entire created
universe both at the cosmic and the individual levels.  And regarding your
opinion about the Gaudapada karika it is enough for me to say this:  Only
those who have experience in studying a variety of Shankara's bhashya-s
will be able to discern where there is a description of nirguNa brahman and
where there is not.  And such a study will reveal, out of experience to
him, what shruti/smriti passages Shankara quotes for nirguNa brahman and
what for the other.  'Tarati shokam Atmavit' is a standard shruti passage
in Advaita to indicate the knowledge of nirguna brahman.

I would once again appeal to students of Advaita to either attend a class
by a renowned Acharya or start listening, on a daily basis, just like being
in a class, to the recorded lectures/classes of Swami Paramarthananda on
the Mandukya Upanishad.  It will clarify a lot of things.

subrahmanian.v