[Advaita-l] Shankara on non-Advaitic mokSha/Brahman

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:35 PM, <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:

> You can't arbitrarily change the rules to defend a siddhanta. If you
> reject some thing as non-absolute because it has spacio-temporal
> limitations, then you have to accept saguna brahman as absolute. He is, by
> definition, the creator of space and time and beyond limitations.  When you
> accept saguna brahman as such, you have to do so with his maya. Sun and His
> heat are non-different.
>

The saguNa brahman of Advaita, no doubt is the creator of even space and
time and is beyond those limitations.  But it has to be borne in mind that
Ishwara is the entity that is the abode of the avyakta/avyAkRta/mAyA in the
state of unmanifest, that is, before the manifestation of time and space.
Since this brahman is endowed with this upAdhi/seed that is  mAyA, Ishwara
is aupAdhika/sopAdhika and not nirupAdhika.  And for this reason He is not
deemed to be absolute.  This is the teaching of the sixth and seventh
mantras of the Mandukya upanishad.  In other words, while Ishwara is the
abode of mAyA in both its manifest and unmanifest states and therefore
'related' to mAyA, the shuddha brahman, the turIya, is never the abode of
mAyA and therefore not at all related in any way to mAyA either in its
manifest or unmanifest states.

Thus, apart from the criterion of limitation due to space/time, being
related to mAyA in some way or the other is also a criterion to consider
something as either relative or absolute.

Being upahita and being parichhinna are both parameters to determine the
relativeness (non-absoluteness).

Heat is an attribute of Sun, even as light/brighness is.  But the Absolute
Brahman of Vedanta is devoid of any attribute.  Satyam, Jnanam and anantam
are not attributes the way mAyA is since the former triad  plays no
instrumental role in creation while the latter one does.  While the former
triad can be in Brahman, nay, is Brahman, the latter is in / for Brahman
because of the world, creation.  That which is in Brahman 'owing to' the
world/jivas cannot be natural to Brahman.  In other words, to be the Lord
of mAyA, Brahman has to be dependent on the creation.  'If creation, then
creator (mAyA). If no creation, no creator (mAyA.' This dependence on mAyA
for creating the world makes Brahman a relative one marking it different
from Brahman that has  no such need to be related to mAyA.  Since, in the
ultimate analysis, there are no two Brahmans, what we conclude is that one
Brahman alone 'appears' as the creator-Brahman in association with mAyA.
The aim of the Upanishads is to teach us the nature of Brahman without such
appearance.

regards
subrahmanian.v

-