Originally Posted by Rameses
Why considering the creation of the word Parabrahman - Para is a Sanskrit word which translates literally to mean "supreme," "highest" or "absolute" - if it’s not the ground afore Brahman-Ishwara, then the Real Supreme Reality Source ?
Ishwar is not used as a terminology . It is used to refer the divine force either in human form (Sagun Sakar - with form and qualities ) to abstract (Nirgun nirakar - formless without qualities)
Ishwar is what God is in Judaism and Christianity. There are many names used for the source of this universe in Hindu religion, such as Ishwar, Pameshwar, Parmatma, Bhagwan, omkaar, Jagadish or Raam. Ishwar has no form .
Many a times all divine figures such as Vishnu, Shiva or Brahma are also referred to as Ishwar / God incarnate .
If you are looking to understand the theology than right word for all of human incarnate God/ Ishwar is 'Avatar' which literally means coming down of supreme consciousness in miniature form in a limited human body form with all its limitations.
Now the way one may feel assignment of 'God'/Ishwar title on human form arbitrary , the same way assigning any other divine role to human such as 'son' or 'messenger' or 'enlightened' also can look arbitrary .
Originally Posted by Justasimpleguy
From the Advaita perspective the only relationship between Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman is ignorance, and that ignorance is Nirguna Brahman's reflection as Saguna Brahman. Remove the ignorance and there is only Nirguna Brahman.
Not sure exactly what you imply by word 'ignorance' . But there is tremendous value in Saguna Brahman . All religions allude qualities to God including . So considering Sagun Brahman as ignorance may not be the first thing for one to learn . And doing that may not be the guarantee for Nirgun Brahman realization .