[Advaita-l] Partlessness of Brahman and Maya

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Namaste Venkataraghavan ji,

//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).//

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

Isn't the third vyaya applicable for something which is both niavayava AND
nirguNa. That is why it can be said - OK. You have vyaya-abhAva through
sAvayava-dwAra owing to niravayavatva AND you have vyaya-abhAva through
guNa-dwAra owing to nirguNatva YET you can have swabhAvatah-vyaya. TikAkAra
contemplates this possibility and says that the word ParamAtman is used to
pre-empt this apprehension. By corollary, it means TikAkAra thinks of
something as niravayava AND nirguNa which is not ParamAtman. I cannot think
of any such thing. Neither PrAdhAna nor constituent guNa fit in the
category of nirguNa+niravayava. Interestingly, BhAshya also does not
mention this either in 2.20 or 13.32. It rests content with vyaya-abhAva
through sAvayava-dwAra AND vyaya-abhAva through guNa-dwAra.

//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?//

Since MAyA and PradhAna are not nirguNa, there is no occasion for going to
third vyaya. Their vyaya is very much possible through guNa-dwAra itself.

//Thus the TIkAkAra is referring to the vyaya that can sometimes be natural
to the object, even if the object is niravayava and nirguNa// Can you think
of any such thing?

How I think is as follows:-

the vyaya-abhAva-through-avyava-dwAra is avyayatva-1.
vyaya-abhAva-through-guNa-dwAra is avyayatva-2.

(i) If an object is niravayava but not nirguNa (like AkAshA, MAyA,
PradhAna) - they will have avyayatva-1 but no avayatava-2. So, in totality
there is no avyayatva.

(ii) If an object is not niravayava but NirguNa - No such object exists.

(iii) If an object is not niravayava and not nirguNa - All worldly objects
come in this category. They will neither have avyayatva-1 nor avyayatva-2.

(iv) If an object is niravayava and nirguNa -  It is Brahman which will
have both avyayatva-1 and avyayatva-2. So in totality it will be avyaya.

This is how I have understood which appears to be in line with BhAshya.

*Only problem is - AkAsha, which is triguNAtmaka i.e. comprises three guNa
- how can it be called as niravayava? That is to ask - are not
niravayavatva and saguNatva mutually contradictory. This assumes importance
in view of clear assertion of nirayavatva to AkAsha by BhAshyakAra in
13.27. This also assumes importance in view of the fact that in BSB 2.1.29,
BhAshykAra did not object when opponent said PradhAna to be sAvayava owing
to its triguNAtmakatva. So question to be pondered is - how can niravayatva
of AkAsha and triguNAtmakatva of AkAsha co-exist.*

Praveen ji, V Subramanian ji, Venkataraghavan ji. Pl share your views on
the last para.

Regards.
Sudhanshu.












On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:53 AM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> 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
>>


--
Joint Commissioner of Income-tax,
Pune

sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com