[Advaita-l] Partlessness of Brahman and Maya

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 4:27 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Hari Om Praveen ji,
>
> sorry for late reply.
>
> The sequence thus is clear. It is anAditva => niravyavatva => avyayatva.
>
> Now, question arises, as you rightly put, that if anAditva, through
> nirvayavatva, is enough to lead to avyayatva, then why at all would Bhagvan
> give another factor of nirgunatvaat.
>
> We can see the answer in Gita Bhashya 2.20 - शाश्वत इति अपक्षयलक्षणा
> विक्रिया प्रतिषिध्यते । शश्वद्भवः शाश्वतः । न अपक्षीयते स्वरूपेण,
> *निरवयवत्वात्* । नापि गुणक्षयेण अपक्षयः, *निर्गुणत्वात्* । अपक्षयविपरीतापि
> वृद्धिलक्षणा विक्रिया प्रतिषिध्यते — पुराण इति । यो हि अवयवागमेन उपचीयते स
> वर्धते अभिनव इति च उच्यते । अयं तु आत्मा निरवयवत्वात् पुरापि नव एवेति
> पुराणः ; न वर्धते इत्यर्थः.
>
> Thus, we get an insight to the mind of BhashyakAra. There is something
> called swarUpeNa apakshaya and there is something called guNakshayeNa
> apakshaya. Both are apakshaya (vyaya). So, two factors have to be
> necessarily postulated to cover the two types of vyaya. Anandagiri Tika
> includes the third one also - स्वभावत: व्यय:. I am not including that for
> want of the mention in BhAshya.
>
> Noticeable thing is thus two possibilities:-
>
> (i) When a stuff is niravayava AND with gunas. Then it will be swrupeNa
> avyaya but it will not be avyaya with respect to guNakshaya. I am sure
> AkAsha fits in here as per bhAshya.
>
> (ii) An object which is nirguNa but sAvayava. I cannot think of anything
> which fits in here. So this possibility is rejectable.
>
> Thus, MAyA/AvidyA/AkAsha which are held to be niravayava by BhAshyakAra
> will have to be swarUpeNa avyaya but not guNakshayeN avyaya.
>
> Now, this transpires through an objective analysis of bhAshya vAkyas. But I
> am not at all sure as to what exactly is the meaning of swarUpeNa avyaya.
>
> The premise which comes through Anandagiri Tika is that an object can have
> absence of vyaya owing to being niravayava AND owing to being nirguNa and
> yet it can have vyaya swabhAvatah. Can you think of any such thing. I fail
> here.
>

In response to the above last paragraph I have this to say:
Maya/Avidya/akasha will fit the first condition: absence of vyaya owing to
being niravayava. We have not heard of Maya/avidya/akasha undergoing the
bhaava vikara-s but they are admitted to have naasha finally.  Akasha
during every pralaya and the other two at the dawn of knowledge/videha
kaivalya.  This is a case of  swarUpeNa apakshaya (vyaya, naasha).

[There is the mention of increase/decrease of avidya in the Bhashya. But
that is about the avidya kaarya, manifestation of avidya, and not the mula
avidya. Same with maya.]

I can't understand this: //being nirguNa and yet it can have vyaya
swabhAvatah //

Only Atman/Brahman can be nirguna and there is no way there is vyaya
svabhavatah. Not also from an external force there can be vyaya to Atman.

Apart from Atman/Brahman there is no entity that can be nirguna.

regards
subbu

>
> Venkataraghavan ji, V Subramanian ji. I would appreciate your comments
> here.
>
> Sudhanshu.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>