[Advaita-l] Did Vyaasa mean Athaato Vishnu Jijnaasaa or Shiva Jijnaasaa?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Srinath Vedagarbha <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 5:09 AM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Whatever attributes that can be posited on Brahman as 'ananta kalyāna guna
>> gaṇa nidhi/ or guṇa pūrṇa is ONLY with relation to the world or jivas.
>> Without being related to the world/jivas, Brahman can never be said to
>> have
>> any guṇa whatsoever.  In other words, Brahman has to depend on prakṛti to
>> have even a single guṇa.
>>
>
> It only shows you have confused between terms 'having' and
> 'manifestation'. Your argument is akin to saying soorya's having
> illumination power is depend on object on which it illuminates.
> Irrespective of objects, soorya's power exist. It is only known (to us the
> perceiver) in relation to objects on which it illuminates.
>

Guṇas are there only for being manifested; otherwise there is no use of
them. No one would carry a load for nothing. The Sun is just luminous; it
does not resolve to illumine anything.  By virtue of being in its range,
objects get 'illumined.'  We have two expressions: सविता प्रकाशते, सविता
प्रकाशयति. The former is the vastu sthiti while the latter is our thinking
about it.



>
> So also, Parabrahman's guNa-s do exist irrespective of jIva/jagat. It is
> only when we need to know about its manifestation we need jIva-jagat.
>

This is what begs logic. With no respect (need) of the jiva-jagat, PB need
not have any gunas. Gunas are there only for using/manifesting them.

>
> From another angle when you look at it, when the very existence of
> jIva-jagat itself is depends on His iccha, how do you apply your illogic on
> such guNa (of having eternal sankalpa of not destroying jIva-jagat)?
>

If it is His 'icchā' that the jiva-jagat exists, then there can be no
greater sadist than Him. The Lord has said: anityam asukham imam lokam
prāpya bhajasva mām.  Why would the Lord revel in having such a world with
jivas suffering only to also give them the path to come out? In Tamil there
is a saying which means: the mother pinched the baby and when it wailed in
pain, she rocked the cradle. Why do we agree upon ajnana being the cause of
samsāra and jnana to remove it if it were only His icchā that we are in
samsara?

>
>
>
>>
>> In BSB 'tadadhīnatvādarthavat' Shankara says: we have to admit that latent
>> power (like the pradhāna of the sānkhyas), for without that power, the
>> Vedāntic Brahman can not even be the creator.
>>
>> So, the fundamental requirement of being a creator needs prakṛti, what to
>> say of all other guṇas!
>>
>>
> Same here, being creator is different thing and having creating guNa is
> all together a different thing.
>

The creating guna is no more than being adhyakṣa, the consciousness lender:
mayā adhyakṣeṇa *prakṛtiḥ sūyate* sacharācharam.  It is only because He
cannot do it himself does he feel the need for the prakriti to do it. The
creating guṇa itself stems from the co-opting (partnering) prakṛti.



> /sv
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>