[Advaita-l] Fwd: Nirguna Brahman has Guna-s acquired from Maya alone - Srimad Bhagavatam

[Kaushik Chevendra]

Namaste shri sreenivasa ji.
Had the definitions of terms of "Maya" " avidya" etc been useless to
discuss, acharya Shankara would not have discussed them in such detail in
his bhasyas. And if only the "Shruthi" vakyas are important our acharyas
wouldn't have written commentaries on gita and puranas.
Statments such as "i am Atman" etc don't have any use if they aren't
contemplated by people have enough chitta sudhi. The mere thought that " i
am brahman" gives no use to anyone. For the mind to grasp that reality and
be free from avidya the sadhana of bakthi and niskama karma are mandatory.
And the process of bakthi includes shravana and mananam of the "puranas"
and Mahabharata. So saying " i am Atman" day and night has no practical
benifit when there is absence of chitta sudhi. Hence while keeping in mind
that the Atman is all, one needs to worship bagavan and know about his
Gunas, leelas etc. Assuming that our acharyas including shankaracharya,
madhushana Saraswati, abhinava vidyatirtha swamin etc are not people with
loka dhristhi, they too have made such "postings" or writings or bhasyas on
avidya, Maya , gunas etc. So if you feel these terms are useless you can
refrain from using or discussing them.
Assuming that not everyone has attained enough chitta sudhi to grasp the
concept of atman, the discussion on puranas and other concepts are relevant
even in the advaita group.  The "lokadristi" is very much present till one
attains mukthi.

Namo narayana

On Thu, 6 Apr, 2023, 8:24 pm sreenivasa murthy via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

>
> Dear Sri Subramanian,
>
>
>
> Chandogya Sruti says :
>
>
>
> ahamEvEdagM sarvam ||7-25-1
>
>      AtmaivEdagM sarvam || 7-25-2
>
>
>
> Taittariya says : satyam jnanam anantaM brahma ||
>
>
>
> Mandukya says : sarvagm hyEtad brahma ayamAtmA brahma ||
>
>
>
> Hence the conclusion that can be drawn from the above mantrais :
>
>
>
> aham atmA  aham  brahma.
>
> Do you agree with the above conclusion?
>
>
>
> So aham is ananta.
>
> aham is here & now.
>
> So only ananta is here and now.
>
>
>
> Where is the place for all the things like maya, guna,avidya,  etc. etc.?
>
>
>
> What Bhagavatam is saying from avidyadRuShTi.
>
> What comes from avidyadRuShTi / lOkadRuShTi  is nothing but mere words
>
> which are the product of , what?
>
>
>
> Of what use is the information so provided?
>
>
>
> It will be much more worthwhile to limit oneself toSrutivakyas
>
> which deal with paramartha.
>
> Is it not so?
>
>
>
> I know that I am an outcaste in this Advaitin-1 group.
>
> The honourable members refuse to give their observations
>
> About the contents  ofthe postings.
>
> Yet as a student of Vedanta  I want to express my views fearlessly.
>
>
>
> With respectful namaskars,
>
> Sreenivasa Murthy
>
>
>     On Thursday, 6 April, 2023 at 07:54:53 am GMT+1, V Subrahmanian via
> Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>  In this chapter it is stated that Brahman really has no attributes and
> that
> the attributes are from Maya alone:
> श्रीमद्भागवतपुराणम्/स्कन्धः ५/अध्यायः १६
> https://sa.wikisource.org/s/k69
> <
> https://sa.wikisource.org/s/k69?fbclid=IwAR0Q5pCttXj7OWRo-6R8KTSFlAWE7xHNj9Wuw4ufK86JYWoFP3FQW3IjWMk
> >
> भगवतो गुणमये स्थूलरूप आवेशितं मनो ह्यगुणेऽपि सूक्ष्मतम आत्मज्योतिषि परे
> ब्रह्मणि भगवति वासुदेवाख्ये क्षममावेशितुं तदु
> हैतद्गुरोऽर्हस्यनुवर्णयितुमिति ३
> This mundane form, which is the gross form of the Supreme Lord, is endowed
> with attributes. But the subtle-most form is nirguna. It is said to be
> Atmajyotis, Parabrahman, Vasudeva.
> Shankaracharya says in Kathopanishad Bhashya (1.3.9):
> विज्ञानसारथिर्यस्तु मनःप्रग्रहवान्नरः ।
> सोऽध्वनः पारमाप्नोति तद्विष्णोः परमं पदम् ॥ ९ ॥
> तत् विष्णोः व्यापनशीलस्य ब्रह्मणः परमात्मनो वासुदेवाख्यस्य परमं प्रकृष्टं
> पदं स्थानम् , सतत्त्वमित्येतत् , यत् असावाप्नोति विद्वान् ॥
> Nirguna Brahman, which transcends these qualities, is the true nature of
> Brahman.
> Here Shankaracharya has said that the word 'Vishnu' is 'vyapanashila'
> (all-pervading). From this it should be understood that this is Nirguna
> Brahman. Even the word Vasudeva has a verse indicating the etymology as
> cited by Shankaracharya in the Vishnu Sahasra Nama Bhasya.
> The Bhagavatam further describes that the nature of Ishwara is Maya- Guna:
> ऋषिरुवाच
> न वै महाराज भगवतो मायागुणविभूतेः काष्ठां मनसा वचसा ...
> This sentence is about the universal form of Brahman (Vishwarupa) mentioned
> earlier. So here the Bhagavatam tells us that that attribute is derived
> from Maya.
> So Brahman really has no guna-s. When the guna-s are said to exist they are
> derived from Maya alone and are not inherent in Brahman.
> The absence of guna-s is also is derived here based on the anvaya-
> vyatireka nyaya (rule of co-presence and co-absence) in the Bhagavatam.
> This premise is accepted only in Advaita: No inherent guna-s in Brahman but
> only derived from Maya for the purposes of world-creation, etc.
> Om
> Picture of Sage Jada Bharata devoutly besought by Kind Rahugana for Atma
> Jnana upadesha in the Bhagavatam.
>
> See here: https://groups.google.com/g/advaitin/c/9JkbvTiVLhk
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>