[Advaita-l] Partlessness of Brahman and Maya

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste all,
I haven't followed the discussion closely, so if what I am about to say is
not relevant, or has already been mentioned, apologies.

Sudhanshu ji and Praveen ji had already pointed out the TIkAkAra reference
in the gItA bhAShya in question.

निरवयवत्वादेव सावयवद्वारकस्य निर्गुणत्वाद्गुणद्वारकस्य च व्ययस्याभावेऽपि
स्वभावतो व्ययः स्यादित्याशङ्क्याह -- परमात्मेति.

What the TikAkAra is saying, in my opinion is - "because it is without
parts (निरवयवत्वात्), the self does not suffer the decay of a thing with
parts (सावयवद्वारकस्य व्ययस्याभावेऽपि), and being attributeless
(निर्गुणत्वात्),
nor does it suffer the decay of a thing with attributes (गुणद्वारकस्य
व्ययस्याभावेऽपि),
even so, perhaps it suffers the decay which is intrinsic / natural to
it (स्वभावतो
व्ययः स्यात्) - To address such a doubt the bhAShyakAra says (इत्याशङ्क्याह)
- The supreme self, etc."

Thus the TIkAkAra is referring to the vyaya that can sometimes be natural
to the object, even if the object is niravayava and nirguNa. To know what
the TIkAkAra meant by svabhAvato vyaya, we can turn to the brahma sUtra
bhAShya.

In the sUtra  कृत्स्नप्रसक्तिर्निरवयवत्वशब्दकोपो वा (2.1.26) the opponent
argues that Brahman being taken as the material cause of the universe
suffers from the defect that either Brahman transforms as a whole, or the
advaitin's position contradicts the Shruti which says that Brahman is
part-less.

In the sUtra स्वपक्षदोषाच्च (2.1.29), shankarAchArya argues that the defect
cited by the opponent equally applies to the pradhAna of the sAnkhya-s -
despite being niravayava, pradhAna undergoes modification.
परेषामप्येष समानः स्वपक्षे दोषः — प्रधानवादिनोऽपि हि
निरवयवमपरिच्छिन्नं शब्दादिहीनं प्रधानं सावयवस्य परिच्छिन्नस्य शब्दादिमतः
कार्यस्य कारणमिति स्वपक्षः ; तत्रापि
कृत्स्नप्रसक्तिर्निरवयवत्वात्प्रधानस्य प्राप्नोति,
निरवयवत्वाभ्युपगमकोपोवा ।

The opponent argues, the pradhAna of sAnkhya-s is not partless, it has
sattva, rajas and tamO guNas in balanced proportions - thus it too is
sAvayava.
ननु नैव तैर्निरवयवं प्रधानमभ्युपगम्यते ; सत्त्वरजस्तमांसि हि त्रयो गुणाः ;
तेषां साम्यावस्था प्रधानम् ; तैरेवावयवैस्तत्सावयवमिति ;

shankarAchArya says, even if that is so, it cannot avoid the defect,
because each guNa is in turn partless and serves as the material cause
individually, in cooperation with the other two.
नैवंजातीयकेन सावयवत्वेन प्रकृतो दोषः परिहर्तुं पार्यते, यतः
सत्त्वरजस्तमसामप्येकैकस्य समानं निरवयवत्वम् एकैकमेव चेतरद्वयानुगृहीतं
सजातीयस्य प्रपञ्चस्योपादानमिति — समानत्वात्स्वपक्षदोषप्रसङ्गस्य ।

That is, if each guNa is accepted as the cause of the world individually in
cooperation with the other too, it must itself change to create this
changing world.

If it does not change, the guNa-s in pradhAna would continue to remain in
balance and no creation would take place. So the charge applies to the
sAnkhya-s too.

I believe that the third vyaya referred to by the TIkAkAra as svabhAvato
vyaya:, must be admitted for either the pradhAna (if that was accepted as
partless) or to sattva, rajas, tamO guNas (if pradhAna is not accepted as
partless, its guNa-s must be partless in turn).

This also addresses the first question why mAya or pradhAna is said to
undergo vyaya when it too is anAdi (causeless) like Brahman. It is
causeless, but its vyaya is intrinsic to it. If the vyaya of mAyA is not
admitted, you are back to square one - how to reconcile that the absolutely
non-changing Brahman is the material cause for the varied, ever-changing
world?

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019, 08:52 Sudhanshu Shekhar via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Praveenji,
>
> 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? 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.
>
> In any case, Ananadagiri Tika clearly says निरवयवत्वादेव सावयवद्वारकस्य
> ....... व्ययस्याभावेऽपि.
>
> Sudhanshu.
>
> On Sun 16 Jun, 2019, 12:52 Praveen R. Bhat, <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 12:37 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <
> > sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry I am not getting your answer correctly. How do you think the
> >> anAditva=>niravayatva=>avyayatva logic applies in the case of avidyA.
> >>
> >
> > I am saying  anAditva=>niravayatva=>avyayatva is really niravayatva=>
> > anAditva=>avyayatva (partless --> based on context,
> > birthless/causeless-->changeless) as from Shankaranandi. As for avidyA, I
> > think it is same as Maya, being upAdAnakAraNa, there is vyaya.
> >
> > This is also clear in the case of AkAsha, which is आदिमत्, which cannot
> be
> > so, if the above sequence of hetus you read is right since it is also
> > niravaya.
> >
> > Kind rgds,
> > --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] */
> >
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>