[Advaita-l] Partlessness of Brahman and Maya

[Sudhanshu Shekhar]

Exceptional Venkataraghavan ji,

Could you give me any reference wherein guNa-s, sattva, rajas, tamas of
sAmkhya, are held as nirguNa-s explicitly.

Can niravayatva itself be held to be sufficient to proclaim nirguNatva? I
think you are using this in case of SAmkhya guNa. I may be wrong. Pl cite
reference for nirguNatva of guNas. That will solve many issues for me.

I am not that interested for nyAya guNas. Though I would like your view
regarding the usage of word nirguNa in Vedanta. Does it have nyAya-guNa
connotation or sAmkhya-guNa connotation or both?

Regards.
Sudhanshu.

On Tue 18 Jun, 2019, 20:53 Venkatraghavan S, <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>