[Advaita-l] How is AkAsha Niravayava

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Thanks for the Brahmasutra references, Subbuji. Venkataraghavanji has also
quoted the same reference. Overall, one thing is clear that we have
exception seen when it comes to AkASha/Maya/avidyA, as no independent tarka
can be perfect. How so can likely be answered only by mAyayA sarvasya
sambhavAt.

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know
That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */


On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 8:10 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> With regard to Brahman what you say is perfectly fine. Sayanacharya in the
> Purusha sukta commentary says for the lines 'पादोऽस्य विश्वाभूतानि:
> त्रिपादस्यामृतं दिवि -
>
> यद्यपि सत्यं ज्ञानमनन्तं ब्रह्मेत्याम्नातस्य परब्रह्मण इयत्तया
> अभावदर्शनात् अंशचतुष्टयं न निरूपयितुं शक्यं तथापि जगदिदं
> ब्रह्मस्वरूपापेक्षया अत्यल्पमिति विवक्षित्वा पादत्वोपन्यासः |
>
> [Even though since there is not seen to be a limit, confines, for the
> Brahman that is taught as Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam,  it is impossible to
> demonstrate four parts in Brahman, yet with a view to inform us that in
> relation to Brahman, the created world is extremely little sized, the idea
> of quarter (one-fourth) is stated by the Veda]
>
> However, can this be said with reference to Akasha? I know that the five
> bhutas, in their sukshma avastha are all not sAvayava, yet the teaching of
> panchikarana (and trivrt karana in Chandogya) with the clear demonstration
> of the same in the Panchadashi with a mathematical diagram, gives the
> feeling that half, one-eight, etc. is possible with the sukshma bhutas in
> order to make them capable of creating the gross universe. There are
> expressions such as 'AkAsha-pradhaana' in the panchikrta akasha,
> prithvi-pradhana in the panchikrta prithvi, etc. while the other bhutas are
> gauna/apradhana.
>
> Hence my hypothesis.
>
> Upon hearing the reference from you, I looked up the krtsnaprasakti
> adhikaranam and one part of the bhashya seems to give a lot of material for
> vichara:
>
> BSB 2.1.29:  This is a refutation of the Sankhya claim:
>