[Advaita-l] Did Vyaasa mean Athaato Vishnu Jijnaasaa or Shiva Jijnaasaa?

[Venkatraghavan S]

Srinath ji,
I'm not sure how you can take ekatva, devatva etc. as attributes. These are
not features that Brahman is endowed with, these are Brahman's inherent
nature. Just like we say sat, chit and Ananda are not attributes of
Brahman, but Brahman itself. Sat is Chit is Ananda is Brahman.

However, I don't think its worth arguing over if you disagree.

Thanks,
Venkatraghavan

On 22 Jul 2016 7:32 p.m., "Srinath Vedagarbha" <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:04 AM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste,
>> In addition to the references quoted by Sri Subbuji, in Mundaka
>> upanishad, para brahman is described as guNa and avayava rahita -
>>
>>
>> In Shvetashvatara upanishad the word nirguNa is explicitly used to
>> describe Brahman:
>> एको देव: सर्वभूतेषु गूढ: सर्वव्यापि सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा |
>> कर्माध्यक्ष: सर्वभूताधिवास: साक्षी चेता केवलो निर्गुणश्च ||
>>
>>
>
> ekO dEvaha sarvabhootEshu gooDhaha sarvavyApee sarvabhootAntarAtmA
> karmAdhyakshaha sarvabhootAdhivAsaha sAkshee chEtaa kEvalO nirguNascha ||
>
> So, in this context we can not take 'nirguNa' as attributeless, because
> the upanishat has already listed several attributes such as Ekatva,
> Devatva, gooDhatva, sarva-vyAptatva, antarAtmatva, karmAdhyakshtva,
> adhivAsatva, sAkshee-tva, chEtanatva and kEvalatva and then says Brahman is
> NirguNa.
>
> Consistent with this upanishat, Brahman is kEvala and because of that
> reason He is nirguNa i.e, not connected with any guNas ( such as
> sattva-rajas-tamas) or prakrti. In otherwords, Brahman is not made out of
> anything that belongs to prakrti. Whereas this creation is made out of
> prakrti, no one made
> Brahman including prakrti. For this reason, Shrutis call Him as NirguNa or
> aprAkrita.
>
> Many people think, nirguNa means nir-vishEsha (or attributeless ) but we
> should remember that upanishat has already listed a host of attributes
> before saying Brahman is nirguNa. Therefore 'nirguNa' must also be
> interpreted consistent with the rest of the attributes that the upanishad
> has given.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> In Mandukya, after describing PrAjna as Isvara, thus: एष सर्वेश्वर एष
>> सर्वज्ञ एषोऽन्तर्याम्येष योनिः सर्वस्य प्रभवाप्ययौ हि भूतानाम्, para
>> brahman, which the Upanishad enjoins us to know (स विज्ञेयः) is
>> described as guNa rahita: नान्तःप्रज्ञं नबहिःप्रज्ञं नोभयतःप्रज्ञं
>> नप्रज्ञानघनं नप्रज्ञं नाप्रज्ञम् ।
>> अदृश्यमव्यवहार्यमग्राह्यमलक्षणमचिन्त्यमव्यपदेश्यमेकात्मप्रत्ययसारं
>> प्रपञ्चोपशमं शान्तं शिवमद्वैतं चतुर्थं मन्यन्ते स आत्मा स विज्ञेयः ॥
>>
>>>
>>>
> Same here in this shruti also, nir-vishEshatva is not the tAtparya,
> because it list host of other attributes. It uses 'Atma' and we all know
> the definition of Atma as given by shruti itself elsewhere. For its own
> question 'kathama Atma?', it only answers -- AtatatvAchha mAtrutvAdAtmEti
> paramO hariH | AtmA bhAsAstadanyE tu na heYtEShAM tatA guNAH ||
>
> /sv
>
>
>
>