[Advaita-l] Partlessness of Brahman and Maya

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Sudhanshuji,

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:49 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The sequence thus is clear. It is anAditva => niravyavatva => avyayatva.
>
Even in this case, as I have left a question in the earlier mail as to the
corollary having possible exceptions. This vyApti may be sopAdhikavyApti.
Thats the only way the bhAShya and many of the TIkAs would make sense,
IMHO.


> 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.
>
The reason, I think is to differentiate two types of vyayas as Bhagavan
Tikakara brings out. The avayaya-kRta-vyaya and guNa-kRta-vyaya are one
type and svarUpeNa/svAbhAvika is another.


> 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.
>
I'd already covered this in my first response by saying that the shloka is
a logical AND and not a logical OR, but now there are more than two
variables as per the TIkA. However, there is a slight difference in the
interpretation of svena/svarUpeNa in 2.20 and here as in this shloka,
Bhagavan Bhashyakara is showing that both vyayas due to avayava and guNa
are anyena kRta. That is, the svena vyaya here is really by svena
vyayebhyaH or svena guNebhyaH. The TIkA then...


> Anandagiri Tika includes the third one also - स्वभावत: व्यय:. I am not
> including that for want of the mention in BhAshya.
>

...shows svarUpeNa/ svabhAvataH vyayaH, which is of its own nature. That is
how it is as I present my understanding in conclusion, based on further
thinking on the TIkA and also Subbuji's initial response of treating vyaya
as only nAsha when we come to TIkA.


> Thus, MAyA/AvidyA/AkAsha which are held to be niravayava by BhAshyakAra
> will have to be swarUpeNa avyaya but not guNakshayeN avyaya.
>
Precisely so.


> 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.
>
svarUpa here is svabhAva, by itself, without its limbs undergoing vyaya or
guNas undergoing vyaya. This is the case of avidyA, mAyA. They, in their
entirety go away, as they don't have any upAdAnakAraNa limbs which have
come together to make them sAvayava nor have they any guNavyaya due to
which they vanish entirely (as in pralaya too there is equilibrium of
guNas), so the vyaya is jnAnena/ vidyayA. In the case of avidyA, by
virodhArthe na~N, its svarUpa/ svabhAva is vidyAvidodhinI avidyA, and in
the case of mAyA, by prapanchabAdha, kAryAnumeyA mAyA is no longer anumeyA.


> 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.
>
I think TikAkAra's words should either be taken as:
1) सावयवद्वारकस्य गुणद्वारकस्य च व्ययस्याभावेऽपि स्वभावतो व्ययः
स्यादित्याशङ्क्याह without taking the hetus to lead to something like that
does exist OR
2) निरवयवत्वादेव सावयवद्वारकस्य निर्गुणत्वाद्गुणद्वारकस्य च व्ययस्याभावेऽपि
स्वभावतो व्ययः स्यादित्याशङ्क्याह to show that a doubt may still exist that
such an entity may exist and that is refuted by saying there is no such
entity as only Paramatma is nirguNa and it is a kevalAnvayI example.

PS: The only pUrvapakSha as far as my comfort with the above understanding
goes is if someone counters it by convincingly showing that avidyA's
vidyAvirodha is not svabhAva but guNa. :-)

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */