[Advaita-l] Partlessness of Brahman and Maya

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

I've flipped the reply sequence for continuity and included your next reply
mail here as well...

On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 1:12 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> So the avyatva is through niravayavatva and not through "अजो नित्य:"
> Shruti. There is no occasion to bring niravayavatva if it precedes anAditva
> because the shloka itself uses anAditva. One can directly use Shruti अजो
> नित्य: from Shloka.
>
But so does the anAdi that hetu works directly. If first vikAra is not
possible, then no other or the last vikAra is not possible. Anyway, later,
he states what you say as the corollary! Shankaranandi is using two
meanings for anAdi. It has to be seen which reasoning is given with what.
Strangely enough, Bhashyotkarshadipika is using both. घटादेः आदिमत्वेन
सावयवत्वाद्व्ययः दृष्टः, आत्मनस्तु अनादित्वेन निरवयवत्वाद् अवयवद्वारको
व्ययः न सम्भवति। So I shall drop this line of argument. Thanks for
indulging me.

> Not so. p=>q does not mean ~p=>~q. It rather means ~q=>~p. So
> anAditva=>niravayatva leads to sAvayavatva=>Adimatva but does not lead to
> Adimatva=>sAvayavatva.
>
Oh, yes! Sorry I messed up that line; I didn't think of the consequence
that follows as below:


> On the contrary, if niravayavatva=>anAditva is taken then it will lead to
> Adimatva=>sAvayavatva which will contradict with AkAsha case.
>
True, thanks for pointing out the error. Now, lets take your sequence of
niravayavatvAt --> avyaya. It will lead to vyayavatvAt sAvayavatvam.
Doesn't AkAsha have any vyaya?!


> निरवयवत्वादेव सावयवद्वारकस्य निर्गुणत्वाद्गुणद्वारकस्य च व्ययस्याभावेऽपि
> स्वभावतो व्ययः स्यादित्याशङ्क्याह -- परमात्मेति.
>
> If you see the Anandagiri Tika, it is clear that the sequence is
> anAditva=>niravayavatva=>avyayatva. Isn't it?
>
Doesn't necessarily look so, as he doesn't use anAditvam at all. I looked
through a couple of other TIkAs. The corollary doesn't seem to be working
for many perhaps because आदि meaning is different for each and in-context.
It needs further study.

... but let that be; lets go to your main contention which is vyaya/avyaya
as I understand, especially in the case of Maya /avidyA ... Anandagiritika
is saying निरवयवत्वात् सावयव-द्वारकस्य व्ययस्याभावेपि स्वभावतो
व्ययस्स्यात्। So vyaya may be possible even if something is niravayava
which I didn't say earlier, but Bhagavan Tikakara does seem to say be it
via pUrvapakSha.