From this answer where it explains about Brahman being Nirguṇa & Guṇas (attributes) appearing due to Avidyā, the ācārya writes,
तदेवमविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्येश्वरत्वं सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्वशक्तित्वं च, न परमार्थो विद्यया अपास्तसर्वपाधिस्वरुपे आत्मनि ईशत्रीशितव्यसर्वज्ञत्वादिव्यवहार उपपद्यते, तथा चोक्तम् - 'यत्र नान्यपश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमा इति' यत्र 'त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्' इत्यादिना च एव परमार्थवस्थायां सर्वव्यवहाराभावं वदन्ति वेदान्ता ।। 2.1.14
Hence the Lord's being a Lord, his omniscience, his omnipotence, &c. all depend on the limitation due to the adjuncts whose Self is Avidya; while in reality none of these qualities belong to the Self whose true nature is cleared, by right knowledge, from all adjuncts whatever.
Now, positing Guṇas appearing due to Māyā implies Guṇas were inherently present in Brahman, in latent form, which appears due to Avīdyā. If it were not so, then it would imply that existence sprung out from non-existence? rendering it inconsistent with Chānḍogya Upaniṣada 6,
- “The Existent was here in the beginning, my son, alone and without a second. On this there are some who say, ‘The Nonexistent was here in the beginning, alone and without a second. From that Nonexistent sprang the Existent.’ “But how could it really be so, my son?” he said. “How could what exists spring from what does not exist? On the contrary, my son, the Existent was here in the beginning, alone and without a second.
Wherefore end up expositing existence couldn't sprung from non-existence. It makes me wonder—
- How all these Guṇas sprung forth out of Nirguṇa Brahman presuming Nirguṇa means attributeless?
- Or is it the case that Nirguṇa Brahman is endowed with all the Guṇas in latent form?
i.e, Claiming Brahman to be Nirguṇa actually means that the Brahman consists of all Guṇas while simultaneously surpassing them (panentheistic Brahman?), which doesn't leave Brahman confined to a particular Guṇa anymore, thus rendering Brahman fully Nirguṇa?