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

[sreenivasa murthy]

 Dear Sri Kaushik Chevendra,
Please permit me to share the following with you.Quote:
Itwas in 1940 that one day, one of the devotees sitting in the hall raised thetopic regarding the utility of reading books on religion and philosophy. Inreply Sri Bhagavan said:

           " You wake up in the morning and look into the mirror and the mirror showsyou that you have a growth and that you have to get rid of it.  You may goon looking into any number of mirrors; every mirror will tell you the same, butNO MIRROR CAN EVER SHAVE YOU.  YOU HAVE TO SHAVE YOURSELF, instead ofwasting time looking into mirror  after mirror it is BEST to start shavingafter having looked into the first mirror and known the truth.

             So also all the books will tell you the same truth, perhaps in slightlydifferent ways. Instead of wasting  time reading book after book  WHYNOT REALISE FOR YOURSELF WHAT WAS OBVIOUS FROM THE VERY FIRST BOOK".    
Unquote.The lesson fro the above is self evident.
Kindly tell me, how were the sages in the Upanishad period wereconveying Atmavidya to their disciples during which time 
Bhagavad Gita was not existing,the various epics and puranas had not come into being,
the works of the various acharyas did not exist?Can you answer my question?
Why not we follow the methodology adopted and taught by the Upanishadsages in the most simple and direct way during those days in the 21st century?

With respectful namaskars,Sreenivasa Murthy


    On Thursday, 6 April, 2023 at 06:04:40 pm GMT+1, Kaushik Chevendra <chevendrakaushik at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 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