The interpretation of 'Nirguna' is different in different philosophies.
Srila baldeva VidyaBhushan in His Govind Bashya (Gaudiya vaishnav commentary on vedanta sutras)interprets 'Nirguna' as being without any material attributes;i.e. He is fully spiritual.
Similarly, Sripad Ramanujacharya interprets 'Nirguna' as to being without any negative qualities.
Ramanujacarya makes the following argument's in his Sri-Bhasya to refute the theory of Supreme being attributeless(It goes roughly as follows):
if we see a rope and think it is a snake, that mistaken idea is due to the fact that there is something snake-like in the rope, namely the shape of the rope. Similarly, if we are really perceiving Brahman but we think we are seeing the world, then the attributes we are seeing in the world must be derived from the qualities we are seeing in Brahman So for instance, if we see a chair there must be something chair-like in Brahman, otherwise we wouldn't mistake it for a chair. And if we see an apple then Brahman must have some apple-like attribute, etc. But that cannot be if Brahman is attributeless.
So I'm interested in knowing if Sripad Sankaracarya makes any such convincing arguments(I am sure He does) and what these arguments are.
Vedic scriptures contain various verses that states that Supreme Brahman is Nirguna. But as I've already mentioned; the interpretation of the word 'Nirguna' varies greatly in different philosophies.
Ex. Vedanta Sutra; Adhyaya 1, pada 1 ;Adhikarana 5 deals explicitly with this subject matter.
Adi Shankaracharya interprets Nirguna as without any attributes(correct me if i'm wrong). However Shankara also says that Brahman is full of eternal bliss and knowledge(Satcitanandmaya) ; this is also mentioned in various scriptures.
So my 1st question here is
- Is it wrong to say that knowledge,eternity and bliss are his attributes ; Thus concluding that He has attributes?
It is believed by Advaitins that this nirguna Brahman expands himself in saguna form(say Lord Krishna).
- Is there any difference between this Saguna expansion and Nirguna Brahman?
3.If Saguna brahman(say Lord Krishna) is superimposition of Maya on Nirguna Brahman; than would it mean that krishna is under the spell of Maya(illusion)?
The purpose of these questions(Q.2 , Q.3) is that I'm confused with above Shankara philosophy and this verse of Geeta
Edit 1: I seek to find out the explanation/arguments that Shankaracharya(or other prominent acaryas in Disciplic succession) put forward to infer that supreme is without any attributes.
Edit 2: So; please avoid quoting a direct verse from scripture; since I'm looking what Sripad Sankaracharya comments on those(related) verses.
Edit 3: I've purposely used the word 'Supreme' ; instead of using any specific term.
there is sun and from sun radiates the sunlight. Sun pervades the world in form of his light energy. This all-pervading light does not have any form. But sun does have form.
Now If someone argues that Sunlight is Supreme(in this ex.) ; than that would be contradiction to sutra 1.1.2 ; "Janmadi yasya yataha" (from whome birth etc). This is because in given example ; sunlight is the effect of Sun;It has come from sun; Sun is the cause. Thus since sunlight is not independent of sun; it is subordinate to sun.