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

[Kaushik Chevendra]

>
> Kindly tell me, how were the sages in the Upanishad period were
>
conveying 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?
>

I can answer your question. But here are a few of my questions. Are you
saying that the works of acharyas are useless because the sages didn't need
them to get atma Vidya? Are you saying shankaracharya wasted his time
writing his works because the sages didn't need them? Or was bagavan
wasting his time teaching the gita? Was veda vyasa wasting his time writing
puranas?
The sages mental capacity can not be compared with ours. They revealed the
vedas to us. Can you do so?  Are you saying that everyone has the same
chitta sudhi as the sages?

In either case the puranas, Mahabharata etc are all anadi. I.e the repeat
themselves every kalpa. The avataras of bagavan etc repeat themselves after
every kalpa. Just as Shruthi is eternal and revealed by the sages, the
puranas and ithihasa too are anadi. That's why the vedas mention ithihasa
and puranas. So there is no contradiction.


> Why not we follow the methodology adopted and taught by the Upanishad
> sages in the most simple and direct way during those days in the 21st
> century?
>

We can follow it. In the brahmasutra bhasya shankaracharya mentions a few
gunas that are pre-requisite for atma gnana. Such sama, vairagya etc. All
these gunas have to be inculcated before the dawn of jnana. Sadly the
dawning of jnana is not as easy as copy pasting "aham atma" statments from
the internet. Shankaracharya also says that not everyone has the adhikara
for studying the vedas in the apashudradhikarana, so for the people who
aren't having veda adhikara puranas and ithihasa are the key. I hope you
won't cast away shankaracharya as a person with loka dhristhi because of
this statment.

Namo narayana


>
> 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
>
>