This write up is my understanding on how Advaita Vedanta structures it’s metaphysics without

compromising on basic theology. A central theme which I explore is the nature of Ishvara’s
attributes.

Disclaimer: I am not an initiate, just a person who likes to read about philosophy. If I had made
any errors in this article, please be sure point them out in the comments below.

Abbreviations:

BG— Bhagavad Gita

TUB—Taittriya Upanishad Bhashyam

SU— Svetashvatara Upanishad

MU— Mundaka Upanishad

Introduction

According to Advaita, the one Self, on account of being subjected to the influence of various
upadhis or limiting adjuncts, appears in the phenomenal world as Ishvara, Jiva(Individual Self)
and Sakshi(Witness) respectively. Brahman, when associated with the upadhi(limiting adjunct)
of Maya, comes to be known as the God endowed with attributes as well as the creator,
sustainer and destroyer of the world. Similarly, the jiva or the individual is considered to be a
reflection of Brahman through the upadhi of antahkarana.(mind, but it has more to it, it's not that
relevant to the discussion so I'm not describing it for now)

We could assert that at the Vyavaharika level (in which the world is seen as empirically true but
metaphysically/ultimately false), the distinction between Ishvara and jiva is real, and they have a
relationship which is likened to that of a ruler and their subject. That being said, even Ishvara or
the Lord endowed with attributes is an abstraction of the attributeless Brahman into the
phenomenal world, and at the Parmarthika (Absolute) perspective does not have a distinctive
existence.

Objections to the notion of an Impersonal Brahman

This brings the Advaita tradition into conflict with the theosophical schools, especially those of
the Vaishnava tradition like the Vishishtadvaita Vedanta of Ramanujacharya and the Dvaita
Vedanta of Madhvacharya, both of which assert that God has real attributes known as kalyana
gunas. These schools put forward three objections to the Advaita conception of Ishvara.
1. Brahman is explicitly described in the Vedas as the creator of the world. This implies that
attributes like Will, creative potency, etc. are intrinsic to Ishvara.

2. Ishvara is stated as being the controller of Maya (SU 4.9). If Ishvara is a product of Maya, it
cannot be considered it’s controller.

3. An Impersonal Absolute can never be considered the object of devotion

The Advaita response to such objections are as follows:-

1. Wherever Shruti describes Brahman as the first cause, it is described so in conjunction with
Maya. In other words, Maya is the first cause, and since Maya is a dependent entity having its
locus of existence upon Brahman, Brahman is also sometimes exalted as the first cause, albeit
indirectly. As Shankaracharya states in his preface to TUB 3.1–“Brahman is regarded as the
cause, only in so far as He is the basis of illusion, while it is Māyā which is directly concerned
with the change (vikāra); and this sort of Brahman’s causality does not detract from His
unconcernedness”

2. God, although a product of Maya, becomes it’s very controller. While this may seem
contradictory at first, if we assume Ishvara to be a composite entity this confusion ceases. For
example, I am the composite of my body and my consciousness. Although the personage which
is me is a combination of these two distinct entities, my psyche holds control of my body and my
actions define my very essence as this or that person. In that sense, Ishwara is the composite of
His svarupa which is Unconditioned Brahman and his swabhava or his apparent nature due to
Maya (BG 7.5). We will come to this analogy later when discussing about the distinction
between essence and accidents

3. On the third objection there are two approaches. Shankaracharya, at least most of the time, is
of the opinion that bhakti(devotion) is inferior to jnana(knowledge) . Madhusudhana Saraswati
however, interprets Shankaracharya’s commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, and claims that
directed devotion is itself a form of jnana-yoga. The difference, according to Madhusudhana, is
that the bhava(psychological states)created due to the rasa(aesthetic 'flavour' that results from
that Bhava) of Saguna Bhakti(as in worship of Saguna Brahman, God with qualities) does not
condition the manas(mind) into the state of Ananda or Bliss, whereas Nirguna Bhakti does. To
go further into Madhusudhana’s theory of Bhakti would be to stray from our topic.

Sridhara and the notion of essential vs accidental qualities

In the 14th to 16th century, when the Bhakti movement in the eastern parts of the country were
laying the seeds of what would eventually become Bengali Vaishnavism, a form of Advaita
came into being which incorporated elements of bhakti theology into their philosophy. One of
these individuals was Sridhara Swami, a contemporary of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, who lived
near Varanasi in what is now modern day Uttar Pradesh.
Sridhara proposes a two-fold understanding—of essential attributes (svarupa lakshana) and
accidental atttubutes (tatastha lakshana). Before we get any further into this, we must first
understand the philosophical terminology behind essence and accident.

Essence is a property or set of properties that makes something what it is fundamentally.

Accidents are those properties of a substance which do not define it necessarily. No two
substances can share the same essence, but it is possible that they share accidental
characteristics. For example, a cow has a cow’s essence, whereas a horse has a horse’s
essence. Never can a cow and a horse share the same essence, for if that were to be the case
then they would be regarded as the same substance. Distinguishing characters are known as
Vyavartika lakshana.

We know that cows and horses both have hair. We can’t classify an animal as a horse or cow
on the basis of whether it has hair or not. Therefore we understand that hair is an accidental
characteristic of both horses and cows.

So how does this relate to Ishvara? Ishvara’s attributes such as sarvajnatva (omniscience) and
sarvashakti (omnipotence) are characteristics which we ascribe to Ishvara wrongly due to
avidya. They are accidental qualities and do not exist in His svarupa. When I use the word
‘ascribe’, I do not intend to mean that these characteristics are imagined and not real, nor am I
for that matter denying God’s existence. They are real so long as the jiva remains under the
influence of avidya.

Sridhara compared this to the following analogy. Say a traveler confronts you and enquires
about a house. You point towards the house which the traveller is referring to by saying “It is the
house on which that crow is perched”. You have given an insufficient description of the house,
because if the crow were to fly off, your traveller will no longer have the correct information to
identify his destination.

Similarly, the attributes of Ishvara’s swabhava, such as the kalyana gunas, are temporary with
respect to the duration of the jiva’s stay in samsara. In other words, they are accidents of
Ishvara.

The svarupa or true essence of Ishvara is verily the non dual Satchidananda (Being, Awareness
and Bliss).

Ishvara’s volition

One of the main questions I had regarding Advaita’s conception of Ishvara was how could
Ishvara have Will ? It is through Will that Ishvara creates the universe and it is through His Will
that Ishvara enacts his role as the saviour of His devotees. Brahman cannot have a Will since it
is pure consciousness, nor can it be inherent in Maya which is merely an unconscious entity that
projects and conceals things.
To answer this, we must understand what will is. The notion of Will presupposes consciousness
and a medium (such as the mind and the body), through which it can interact and manifest itself
as action. For example, in a human being, the Atman in conjunction with the Buddhi and the
organs of action, is what enables an individual to exert his/her Will.

With Maya or avidya as the body of Ishvara, there exists a medium by which the otherwise
latent consciousness of Brahman exercises His Will.

Q. How can jiva be reflection of something which is attribute less? Reflection needs attributes.

A.The jivas are limitations of Brahman brought about through superimposition via avidya. The
nature of Brahman is Sat or existence. Existence has the ability to give or emanate, and hence
serves as the substratum for the otherwise non existent archetypes known as upadhis which
include Maya or avidya.

Ishwara enacts His Providence through the medium of the avataras to re-establish dharma.
There is no ontological distinction between the avataras and Ishwara, in other words the avatara
does not have an independent existence from Ishwara. Ishwara Is Unborn, He only seems to be
born.

BG 4.6. “Although I am unborn and inexhaustible, and although I am the Lord of all beings,
keeping nature under My control, I manifest Myself by My own self induced illusion.”

If the opposite were to be true, this would imply that Brahman is divisible into parts, which would
be absurd.

The avatara is a mere embodiment of Ishwara’s Will in a gross, subtle and causal body in space
and time—like a sort of puppet. The avatara is a being who is but a mere appearance to the
Jiva and possesses no individual existence of it’s own .

There are positive and essential attributes that Brahman possesses like Sat, Chit and Ananda.
While these are not attributes in the classical sense (for they are seen as one and the same), for
all practical purposes they can be regarded as so.