[Advaita-l] Partlessness of Brahman and Maya

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 5:33 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> V Subramanian ji,
>
> //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. //
>
> That is why I did not really take that into consideration. Mentioned it
> just because Anandagiri Tika does so. निरवयवत्वादेव सावयवद्वारकस्य
> निर्गुणत्वाद्गुणद्वारकस्य च व्ययस्याभावेऽपि स्वभावतो व्ययः
> स्यादित्याशङ्क्याह -- परमात्मेति (Gita 13.32).
>
> This line does contemplate a possibility that there is avyayatva owing to
> being niravayava and also owing to being nirguNa *AND YET* there is vyaya
> by swabhAva. I don't see any possibility of anything being such. BhAshya
> also talks of niravayava and nirguNa only.
>
> //Akasha during every pralaya and the other two at the dawn of
> knowledge/videha kaivalya.  This is a case of  swarUpeNa apakshaya (vyaya,
> naasha). // But being niravayava, there ought not be swarupeNa nAsha of
> AkAshA by the vyapti of Gita 13.32/2.20. That is the question.
>

I see this way: न अपक्षीयते स्वरूपेण, निरवयवत्वात् । is stated in the
context of Atman in the 2.20 bhashyam. This need not be taken as a general
rule. Since there is a baadhaka to this rule in the case of Akasha, which
is very clearly established in the bhashya too to be having naasha, kaala
pariccheda, despite being niravayva, the rule न अपक्षीयते स्वरूपेण,
निरवयवत्वात् । has to be seen as not applicable to akasha. If there were no
baadha pramaNa, the rule could have been universal, absolute. But we have a
baadhaka pramana in the case of akasha, where we have to say निरवयत्वे सति
उत्पत्तिमत्त्वादाकाशस्य नाशः उपपद्यते |

regards
subbu

>
> Sudhanshu.
>
>
>