Panchadas'i - 6.157-iis'vara
is the aabhaasa or semblance of Brahman in maayaa
which is prakr.ti constituted of pure sattva.
He controls maayaa and is the antaryaamii
or Inner Controller of all beings. He is omniscient
and is the cause of the universe. According to the reflection theory iis'vara
is the bimba and the jiiva is His reflection or pratibimba in maayaa. In
both the theories God is omniscient. There is no obstruction
to his knowledge by nescience, because of
the absence of gross and subtle bodies (Samkshepa s'aariirakam 2.176).
Br.up.3.7-antaryaami braahmaNam-iis'vara as the antaryaamii controls all
beings from within.
B.S.1.2.20.S.B-In Br.up.
3.7 the Inner Controller is distinguished from the embodied soul. But this
distinction is based on the limiting adjunct in the form of the body and
organs, conjured up by nescience; the distinction is not real. The indwelling
Self can be only one, not two. The one Self is spoken
of as two because of the limiting adjuncts, like the space inside a pot
being looked upon as different from
the total space. All the statements in the Vedas about the
difference between the knower and the known, doership and enjoyership,
as well as all injunctions and prohibitions
are based on this standpoint. The text "Because
when there is duality, as it were, then one
sees another, etc " (Br.up.2.4.14) shows
that all dealings are only in the state of
ignorance, while the text "But when to the
knower of Brahman everything has become the
Self, what (other thing) can he see
and through what (sense-organ)" denies all
such activity after the rise of
Self-knowledge.
Br.up.3.8.12--- When Brahman
has as the limiting adjunct the power
of eternal and infinite knowledge (maayaa) it is called iis'vara or antaryaamii.
B.S.1.1.20.S.B-God may take various forms at His will through His power
of maayaa to bless devotees. B.S.2.1.34,35.S.B-No
partiality or cruelty can be attributed to God because of the inequality
found in creation. The difference is due to the merits or demerits
of individuals, acquired as a result of actions in past births. God is
comparable to rain. While rain is the common cause
of the sprouting of all seeds sown,
the nature of the sprout depends on the seed. Similarly, while God is the
common cause of all creation, the nature of a
particular individual's life depends on
the seed he has sown in the form of actions in past births.
God cannot therefore be
considered responsible for the inequalities in the world.
Creation is without any
beginning and so there is no such thing as the first birth of a particular
individual for which it could be said
that there would be no cause in the form of past karma. B.S.2.3.46.S.B-God
does not undergo suffering as the jiiva does, because He has no identification
with the body. Even the jiiva will become free from all suffering
when he gives up identification with the two
bodies and realizes that he is the pure
Self, untouched by anything that happens to
the body or mind. It is further pointed
out here that while a reflection of the sun
in a vessel of water may shake when the
water shakes, the sun itself is not at all
affected, so also God is not affected, though
the individual soul may be, by what happens
to the limiting adjuncts.
B.S.3.2.38,39.
S.B-The fruits of all actions are given by God.
The fruit cannot emerge out of apuurva,
the unseen potency, which, being insentient, cannot act unless stimulated
by some conscious agent. This suutra refutes
the view of the Miimaamsakas that
karma itself gives the result through apuurva
and it is not necessary to postulate
a God for the purpose. B.S.2.1.14.S.B--- sarvajnasya
iis'varasya aatmabhuute---------- Name and form which constitute the seeds
of the entire phenomenal existence
and which are the products of nescience are
non-different from the omniscient
God and cannot be classified either as real
or as unreal. They are described in
the Vedas and the Smr.tis as the power of
God, called maayaa. Like space being apparently limited by a pot, etc,
God appears limited by the limiting adjuncts in
the form of name and form, which are created
by nescience. And within the
domain of empirical existence God rules over
the selves which identify themselves
with the individual minds and which are, in
essence, identical with God.
Thus God's rulership, omniscience
and omnipotence are based on the limiting adjuncts conjured
up by nescience; but in reality such terms as
`ruler', `ruled', `omniscience', etc, are not
applicable when speaking of the Self, shining in its own pure nature, after
the
cessation of the limiting adjuncts as a result
of right knowledge. Therefore all the upanishads declare the cessation
of all empirical dealings in the state of the Highest Reality. It is with
reference to this unconditioned Brahman that the Lord says in
B.G. 5.14 and 15:-- "Neither agency nor action
does the Lord create for the world,
nor does he bring about the union with the
fruit of action. It is nature or maayaa that
does all that. The omnipresent Lord does not
take note of the merit and demerit of
anyone. Knowledge is covered by ignorance
and so all beings become deluded".
It is seen from this that
in the state of the Highest Reality all transactions like
those between the ruler and the ruled, etc,
cease to exist. But within the state of phenomenal existence, even the
s'ruti speaks of divine rulership, etc, as in
Br.up. 4.4.22:-- "He is the Lord of all. He
is the ruler of all beings. He is the
protector of all. He is the embankment that
serves as the boundary to keep the
different worlds apart". (Thus the difference
between the standpoints from which
the unconditioned Brahman, on the one hand,
and the conditioned Brahman or God,
on the other, are spoken of is brought out
here).