[Advaita-l] Partlessness of Brahman and Maya

[Venkatraghavan S]

Sudhanshu ji,
In the context of sAnkhya, the guNa-s of the pradhAna are not divisible
into various parts and attributes. Thus a sattva guNa is sattva guNa
because it is so, not because it is endowed with an attribute that makes it
sattva guNa. Thus, the guNa-s are nirguNa.

Similarly, in nyAya, all dravya-s have guNa-s, but guNa-s themselves will
end up as nirguNa - if they were saguNa, they would not be guNa-s, they
would be dravya-s. Thus it must be admitted that guNa-s are nirguNa.

The guNa of sAnkhya (sattva, rajas, tamah) is of course different from the
guNa of nyAya (shabda, sparsha, rUpa, etc).

Regards
Venkatraghavan

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 12:58 PM Sudhanshu Shekhar <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Venkataraghavan ji,
>
> interesting observations. However, I would like more clarity on the
> following:-
> //Why do you say that guNa-s are not nirguNa / niravayava? Even if
> pradhAna is admitted to be sAvayava because of the presence of guNa-s, the
> guNa-s themselves are admitted to be partless and attributeless by the
> pUrva pakshi. That is why in the bhAShya, it is said यतः
> सत्त्वरजस्तमसामप्येकैकस्य समानं निरवयवत्वम्.//
>
> //the guNa-s themselves are admitted to be partless and attributeless by
> the pUrva pakshi// Where exactly have gunas themselves been held as nirguNa
> in the bhAshya? I understand guNas are admitted as niravayava, but how
> nirguNa? What does it even mean to say guNa is nirguNa? Pl clarify here. It
> is a very unsettling statement to me to say guNa are nirguNa.
>
> Sudhanshu.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 4:29 PM Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sudhanshu ji,
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019, 09:09 Sudhanshu Shekhar, <sudhanshu.iitk at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Why do you say that guNa-s are not nirguNa / niravayava? Even if pradhAna
>> is admitted to be sAvayava because of the presence of guNa-s, the guNa-s
>> themselves are admitted to be partless and attributeless by the pUrva
>> pakshi. That is why in the bhAShya, it is said यतः
>> सत्त्वरजस्तमसामप्येकैकस्य समानं निरवयवत्वम्.
>>
>> That is also the basis for the sUtra स्वपक्षदोषाच्च -  sAnkhya will have
>> to admit that there is a niravayava, nirguNa entity in their system, which
>> changes. When such a flaw exists in their own system, by the rules of
>> debate, they cannot level it against the advaitin.
>>
>> However, the same charge does not apply to the advaitin, because of
>> shruti and anubhava pramANa. The source for both Brahman's upAdAna
>> kAraNatva on the one hand and its nirguNatva, niravayavatva, avyayatva,
>> etc. on the other, is the shruti (श्रुतेस्तु शब्दमूलत्वात्), and
>> anubhava, i.e., the dream world conjured by the sleeper, (आत्मनि चैवं
>> विचित्राश्च हि),
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>> Yes, the bhAShya does not mention it there, because in that context
>> shankarAchArya is commenting on the sloka-s from the perspective of
>> advaita, not criticising the opponent's system as in स्वपक्षदोषाच्च. In any
>> case, the TIkAkAra adds that reference in gItA 13.32 even when the
>> bhAShyakAra does not do so, in order to address the charge similar to the
>> one that was brought up in the कृत्स्नप्रसक्ति adhikaraNa.  That is the
>> purpose of a sub-commentary - to expand upon the bhAShya and cover areas
>> that are not mentioned explicitly.
>>
>>>
>>> *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.
>>>
>>
>> The point about 13.27 is that AkAsha's nirvavayavatva is invoked not for
>> its own sake, but to examine the relationship between the kshetra and
>> kshetrajna. The question asked is how can the kshetrajna, who is partless
>> like space, have a samyoga or samavAya association with the kshetra? The
>> opponent's intention is not necessarily to establish that AkAsha is
>> niravayava, but that the kshetrajna is, and therefore no relationship is
>> possible between the kshetra and kshetrajna.
>>
>> However, the argument can be made that since the example is being used to
>> convey such a meaning, it makes sense to conclude that the example first
>> contains niravayavatvam. A counter-argument is that not every position by
>> the opponent must be necessarily rejected in every instance. If that were
>> the case, shankarAchArya should first have rejected the doubt on the basis
>> that samavAya itself is an impossibility, so the charge that samavAya is
>> not possible between the kshetrajna and kshetra is a futile one. He does
>> not do so, because the point he wishes to make is a larger one - that their
>> relationship is an AdhyAsika, superimposed one.
>>
>> In any case, whether bhAShyakAra intends to convey that AkAsha is
>> partless through such a statement, or not, there is a case to be made both
>> for AkAsha's sAvayavatvam and niravayavatvam. The former, because of the
>> reasons you outlined. The latter, because it does not have parts or limbs.
>> It is that much alone that, in my opinion, must be understood as
>> necessarily present in AkAsha in order to raise the question that no
>> samyoga or samavAya relationship is possible for the kshetrajna with the
>> kshetra.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkatraghavan
>>
>>>
>
> --
> Joint Commissioner of Income-tax,
> Pune
>
> sudhanshushekhar.wordpress.com
>