Yes, I'm. :) @TheLittleNaruto

Beautiful post, but not an answer to your question "How all these Guṇas sprung forth out of Nirguṇa Brahman presuming Nirguṇa means attributeless?" How does this even answer your own question.?? Moreover you are makiing a fundamental mistake of assuming Nirguna Brahman as a separate entity from Brahman. No Brahman is Nirguna. So if one says Brahman it automatically means Nirguna. Adding it is only for the sake of clarification.

The quotation from Vivekachudamani is irrelevant. All the gunas are there in Maya. Where is Maya? Maya is in Brahman. So where are the gunas? The gunas are in Brahman. If Gunas are in Brahman how is he Nirguna?? Youare just quoting Vivekachudamani and other scriptures without answering the question. How is Brahman nirguna if the world is full of Gunas?? Gunas came from Maya, Maya from Brahman. Your question is unanswered

Moreover the rays of the Sun is not Sun, its photons it comes to Earth. How is it the same as Sun?? Its clearly different from Sun. Likewise Maya is different from Brahman. Moreover if Maya is same as Brahman, she Becomes real as Brahman is true. Maya is sadasad. All these finer details are missing from your answer.

@MrGreenGold It's answering the question. Probably, you are not comprehending it in toto. "Moreover you are makiing a fundamental mistake of assuming Nirguna Brahman as a separate entity from Brahman." — No, I'm not. Where did I? It suggests you didn't understand my answer. Brahman is Brahman. Some passages refer Brahman baring its power whereas some passages refer Brahman with its power. Brahman doesn't automatically mean Nirguna.

"The quotation from Vivekachudamani is irrelevant. All the gunas are there in Maya. Where is Maya? Maya is in Brahman. So where are the gunas? The gunas are in Brahman. If Gunas are in Brahman how is he Nirguna??" — You are asking the same questions I answered. And even if photons are arriving then it replaces the rays & when I call sun, then I also include its rays. Like capability to burn is inseparable to fire, so power of Brahman is inseparable to Brahman.@MrGreenGold

"Brahman doesn't automatically mean Nirguna." Ask any Advaiti in this forum whether they agree with this. This runs directly against Advaita. Infact it goes against your own reference in the question

Brahman automatically, if unqualified by anyother word means, Nirguna. Period

The distinction of Saguna and Nirguna is only for our understanding. Brahman simply means Nirguna. Refer to your reference in the question.

And ask any Advaiti on this forum or anywhere

Ok this is only semantics, leave that, the main point is you have simply not answered the question

"You are asking the same questions I answered"??? No no I am asking the same question which you have not answered. I habe completely read your amswer it simply is not an answer. How does it answer the question??

"All the gunas are there in Maya. Where is Maya? Maya is in Brahman. So where are the gunas? The gunas are in Brahman. If Gunas are in Brahman how is he Nirguna" this is the question, now answer it briefly, and lucidly, how have you solved the problem of Gunas residing in Brahman?? Be precise and brief, how is the problem solved??

@MrGreenGold Ask any Advaiti in this forum whether they agree with this.— I am not conforming to the 3rd party explanations. I am directly reading Shankara's works. " it goes against your own reference in the question" — Which one?

Did you read the latest updates|?

very confusing theory lol @Mr.Sigma.

KS could have answered this better I feel.

In any case, I have ventures to answer these questions by myself w.r.t. Shankara's works alone who doesn't answer these questions with theory of multiple realities. I am not a Vedantin, who doesn't agree with tenets of AV for its inconsistencies & lack of answers of difficult questions.

@TheLittleNaruto Yeah, KS answers. Moreover, I am just venturing to answer because a guy aspired to get answer by raising bounty, otherwise, I don't care to answer because there seems to be a lot of issues with Advait Vedanta.

@TheLittleNaruto , Advaitins tend to reiterate the same theory of multiple realities, but shy away from providing any reference from Shankara's works.

@Mr.Sigma. No offence but I feel Adi Guru would have confused more when debating with others

than actually answering the doubts

Theory of multiple realities is mostly the sole refugee of Advaitins against the difficult philosophical questions.

Yeah

@TheLittleNaruto Probably, Advaita of Shankara was more subtle but watered down to an extent that it's no more recognizable in its true form.

May be a well learned scholar can shed more light.

@TheLittleNaruto Yup. I have read works of Adi Shankara & haven't found yet. Let's see if I find in his Bhashyas of Upanishad.

Okay

@Mr.Sigma. Pandya has better understanding of Advaita Vedanta

We can also ask him

@TheLittleNaruto In any case, I am not obliged to brain storm to get answers on behalf of AV. KS answers all these succinctly.

@Mr.Sigma. haha.. Guess somebody was after bounty ;-P

@TheLittleNaruto I wasn't after bounty. I just wished to help him.

:)

@Mr.Sigma. You have said Advaita is filled with inconsistentcies and does not answer difficult philosophical questions. I would like to know what those questions are.

@Mr.Sigma. you have simply not answered my question

"All the gunas are there in Maya. Where is Maya? Maya is in Brahman. So where are the gunas? The gunas are in Brahman. If Gunas are in Brahman how is he Nirguna" this is the question, now answer it briefly, and lucidly, how have you solved the problem of Gunas residing in Brahman?? Be precise and brief, how is the problem solved??

let it be short and sweet

@MrGreenGold "Maya is in Brahman"— It's not in Brahman., Brahman has Maya as its power. Therefore Gunas are in Maya not Brahman. I have been reiterating the same but you ain't comprehending.

I have hands, hands ain't in me. My witness or existence is separate from hands.

@MrGreenGold There are many. Consider a simple question. All would eventually merge in Brahman, then by now there shouldn't have any more jiva left in bondage presuming there have been innumerable creations.

This is a problem with all the Vedanta schools actually. They simply answer it by asserting that there are infinite souls, which isn't convincing.

@Mr.Sigma. first of all, all Hindu schools believe that there are infinite souls, including KS. And I don't why you are unconvinced with a simple logic like that

@Mr.Sigma. MAYA IS NOT IN BRAHMAN😑

?????

WHERE IS SHE???

@Mr.Sigma.

Tattva Bodha 11.1 - A work from Shankaracharya

It clearly says Maya is in Brahma. Calls her Brahmashraya.

There's a popular problem posed by Ramanujacharya of Vishistadvaita to Advaita

The answer is in Brahman

You and your hands are a bad example. Its just language game. What is you? Your soul?? Or your body? If you are collection of different organs, then ofcourse hands are in you.

Look at this India has Maharashtra, jist like you have hands. And Maharashtra in India. So if we consider you as a body then of course, your hands are in you.

You are taking for granted that just because you say Maya is Brahman's power its somehow answers the question.

Just because you say its a power you have not answered the question where she is, I don't why you think that

If there is money in your hands, you cant call yourself poor.

If gunas are there in Maya, according to you Brahman can't be nirguna.

You have simply not answered the question at all. If at all you think calling something its power answers the location of it, you ahould have been way more explicit in your answers. I just can't understand why you would think callong something a power and using the word "have" instead of "in" would answer the question

Try explaining this

@Mr.Sigma.

@MrGreenGold There is a difference in case of KS— the reason I'm satisfied with its consistency. There should be a point where all should have gotten Moksha in Vedanta because they believe bondages have been existing since eternity though there is an end.

Moreover, Vedanta doesn't speak about origin of bondage. It simply asserts that it has been since eternity though have an end.

@MrGreenGold "have" connoted to external projection. Rays of the sun are being projected outwardly; Rays have 7 colors & I'm defining Sun as both the combination of Sun+its Rays. Whenever I assert that sun has no 7 colors, you should understand that I'm talking about Sun barring its rays but when I assert that the sun is shining on the earth, then it means that the rays are included in the sun.

Upanishads indicate the sun barring its rays (hence devoid of 7 colors) when they assert Brahman to be Nirguṇa whereas they indicate the sun with its rays when Brahman is asserted to create the world.

Okay. I'm ending here irrespective of you agree to my answer or not. Bye.

@Mr.Sigma. You just pick bad examples after bad examples. The Sun rays travel away from Sun and enter Earth. But Maya never leaves Brahman. The example is just invalid.

@Mr.Sigma. Moreover afaik KS also doesn't explain the origin of bondage. But I may be wrong, I'll ask a question

@Mr.Sigma. if A is in B, and B is in C. A is in C you have failed to grasp this basic logic. I have clearly given scriptural proof Where Shankaracharya himself calls Maya as Brahmashraya. And you have failed horribly to prove how "being in" is different from "a power of" and all you have given faulty examples. When I show the fault you simply come with a new example.

@Mr.Sigma.the light before leaving Sun is in Sun. So all thve 7 colours are in Sun. Simple. Where are 7 colours, in Light, where is light in Sun. So the 7 colours are in Sun. If you can't understand this you'll need a basic lesson in logic

@Mr.Sigma. I'm also stopping this conversation as this is going nowhere as you have already assumed you are right.

Despite being horribly wrong

@MrGreenGold Dude, when did I gave examples? These are analogies. Analogies ain't meant to be equivalent to the fact.

@MrGreenGold Maya is substrated on Brahman. This is the literal meaning of ब्रह्माश्रय।

@MrGreenGold First get informed about the difference between analogy & examples followed by scopes of analogies.

@MrGreenGold Nobody has stopped you do write a right answer.

The point I was trying to make was that the Brahman is both transcendent & immanent and the creation is due to its immanent aspects governed by Maya. We usually call Brahman with its transcendental aspect Nirguṇa Brahman. The verse from Atmabodh that I have included in the answer implying the same that too with analogy of the sun & rays.

@Mr.Sigma. again sophistry.

In any case, you being a renowned logician might want to make your hands dirty with an answer backed up with relevant sources by harnessing your skilled intellectual prowess?

Fine analogy has to be analogous

Its not

Sure I will write an answer, but the whole point was to show you your answer is actually a very informative, yet irrelavant post

I'm leaving the stage now. Bye. I attempted to answer with my limited capacity. You can try the same.

@Mr.Sigma. will try

@MrGreenGold whatever... I am not custodian of Advait & the arguments I put forth were anew unconditioned by the 3 truth theories floating hither tither just to help the also_ran in some way... I would also like to see how Advaitins gonna answer otherwise without resorting to theories of relative, absolute & all the rest of it.

@Mr.Sigma. and the main point I was trying to make is both Transcendent and Immanent Brahman is Nirguna. Immanent Brahman is also Nirguna. That's the whole point.

@Mr.Sigma. the answer rests in three truth theory. You arre simply rejecting it baselessly

"Without resorting " on what basis are you putting this condition, just cuz you don't like it

Or is there some objective reason?

@Mr.Sigma. Anyway your question is as horrible as what is 1+1, let me see what the answer without it being is two

You have an allergy to infinite souls, eternally life in bondage, two truths of Advaita. Yet you ask how is Nirguna Brahman defined as per Advaita. And expect an answer out of the system of Advaita. Its a joke

@Mr.Sigma.

It's not about allergy but about consistency.

@MrGreenGold Because 3 truth theory isn't to be found in Ādi Śaṅkara's works. I would accept your answer if you include concept of 3 truth theory from his works.

Ok if you say its inconsistent, you've got to explain why? You can't just make a claim @Mr.Sigma.

@MrGreenGold You can answer instead of whining.

Three truth is not found in Shankars work?? Ok this is new, I honestly didn't know that.

No more discussion. Write an answer either with

I'll check it up

Sure I will write an Answer

1. 3 truth theory from Adi Shankara's work.

2. Or answer without resorting to it

@Mr.Sigma. any way I would like to thank you for your time, despite ocassional heat

Afaik I cant answer the question without calling Maya Sadasat. Nethier true nor false. I have read its in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya. Will check on that.

@Mr.Sigma.

@Mr.Sigma. here's the proof that 3 truth theory is there in Shankaracharya's work

advaita-l.advaita-vedanta.narkive.com/TdZlXr4j/…

@Mr.Sigma. also I have asked a question on KS. See if you can answer it