[Advaita-l] Partlessness of Brahman and Maya

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

V Subramanian ji.

//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//

If we don't take this meaning, then what would remain the meaning of
निरवयवत्वात्?
It is a clear case of vyApti. Is it not?

In order to bring into AkAsha in its fold, we should see as to what exactly
BhAshyakAra means by the word न अपक्षीयते स्वरूपेण. So let us take a case
of a sAvayava, like a doll with limbs. We break one of the limb and there
is a kshaya in its swarUpa. That is all. SwarUeNa here need not be taken to
mean स्वेन आत्मना but like in the case of a sAvaya object because that is
the comparable here.

So my take basically is - in 13.32, there is निरवयवत्वात् अव्यय and
निर्गुणत्वात् अव्यय.  Let these be avyaya-1 and avyaya-2. These two
avyaya-1 and 2 have artha-samkocha as against the mukhya avyaya. That is
why both causal factors are required of niravayava and nirguna. Otherwise
one would be sufficient.

AkAsha is niravaya but saguNa, hence there will be no swarupeNa-vyaya but
there will be guNa-vyayena-vyaya. It so happens that by guNa-vyayena, there
will be swena-AtmanA-vyaya of AkAsha.

Sudhanshu.










On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 5:45 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>

-- 
Joint Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com