[Advaita-l] About Saguna Brahman / Ishwara

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Raghava Kumar prabhuji
Hare Krishna

As you said-

1. NB + mAyA = Ishvara

>  IMO there is no business like + or - in NB, when srushti / Ishwara is considered in srushti prakaraNa their ananyatvaM to be understood i.e. abedha between shakti and shaktivAn.  

2. shakti or mAyA is the consort of the male Ishvara.

>  Yes in puranic sense or from the upAsana point of view.  But from the vedAnta drushti as said above these are not two separate entities.  Do we say jyOti and prakAsha are two separate entities??  

it becomes tricky because on the upAsya side (statement 2) mAyA is not jaDa while in the technical sense (statement 1), mAyA is jaDa and Ishvara alone can be the cetaNa mAyIn.

>  Yes in the context of devi-deva, both are Chetana-s (like husband and wife (shiva - Parvathy), mother and son (gowri-ganesha) upAdhi vishesha Chetana-s.  And in vedAntic scenario in srushti prakriya brahman is ekamevAdviteeya Chetana and this Chetana (shakti) is nothing but shakta (brahman).  As said above anayatvaM of Ishwara-mAya quite clear in srushti prakaraNa as sarvajnatva and sarvashaktitva quite inherent in brahman.   

To accommodate both Shiva and Shakti being cetaNa,  I read about the analogy somewhere  of a dancer when in fluid dance being Shakti and when holding a pose being Shiva. Not sure if there is any classical reference to this dancer in movement vs dancer is still pose,  analogy.

>  bhAshyakAra himself gives the example of devadutta who sometimes stretches his limbs and sometimes folding his limbs, in both postures devadutta is same devadutta ONLY 😊 paramahamsa gives the example of coiled snake and moving snake.  

>  It is ONLY jaganmithyAvAdins or jagat bhrAti vAdins to propagate their sva-paksha vAda say something else other than what has been well established in shruti-smruti and bhAshya.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar