Maya

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Ok so now we know there is only One...Ekam Eva Advaitam Brahman.
So why see two?
Maya is the Power of Brahman.
It lies latent in Brahman.
Doesnt everthing finally go back to Brahman.

Ok let me type this from the Subaalopanishad:

It describes Dissolution.
I am going in reverse gear direction so that we can understand how things came about.

Among the five elements namely Earth,Water,Fire,Air and Ether.Earth dissolves in Water,Water gets absorbed by Heat(Fire),Fire gets absorbed by Air and Air by Ether(Akasa)

Akasa melts in Cosmic Power(Indriyas) and the Cosmic Power in Tanmantras(subtle essence) which is their natural cause.

Tanmantras melt in Cosmic Ego(Ahamkara),The Cosmic Ego in the Great Principle of Cosmic Intelligence(Mahat-Tattvam) and the Great Principle melts in Root Matter(Mula Prakirti) which is Maya.

Finally the the Root Matter(Mula Prakirti/Maya) melts into the eternal,attributless Brahman.

Why don't you say maya sprung up from nirguna brahman? The only problem with nirguna brahman being a cause is, even causing can arise only out of thinking which you cannot associate with nirguna brahman. You can only say, if you want to attribute creation to nirguna brahman, that the world keeps repeatedly existing and dissolving forever along with nirguna brahman. That is, it naturally happens. But a small problem is that if physical world is directly associated with nirguna brahman, I think its nature of pure spiritual consciousness disappears. So you need a saguna brahman to be associated with the physical world.

 

[renuka]

Why don't you say maya sprung up from nirguna brahman? The only problem with nirguna brahman being a cause is, even causing can arise only out of thinking which you cannot associate with nirguna brahman. You can only say, if you want to attribute creation to nirguna brahman, that the world keeps repeatedly existing and dissolving forever along with nirguna brahman. That is, it naturally happens. But a small problem is that if physical world is directly associated with nirguna brahman, I think its nature of pure spiritual consciousness disappears. So you need a saguna brahman to be associated with the physical world.

Sravna...
Yes Yes maya sprung out from Nirguna Brahman only.
Sravna being Nirguna doesnt mean One is "Inert" as in unable to "think" sorts or somewhat lifeless.
I feel very reluctant to sound as if we are trying to describe Nirguna Brahman.
Being beyond description is not as if there is Nothing(Sunyam) but in other words Everything(Purnam) but its just that the human mind cannot phantom it.

So Sravna I rest my case cos more than this I will be doing the error of trying to describe Nirguna Brahman.

 

[sravna]

Yes!!! This is what I could grasp, understand and accept as the right thing after your repeated hard attempt to put your POV across. As such, was my post #106, addressing you and Renuka.

Now what's the next level of introspection, Shri Sravna? Or is it over with the concluded assumption that MAYA is the power of Saguna Brahman?

Dear Ravi,

It is not concluded that maya is the power of saguna brahman. It is one of the possibilities we will consider. In my limited reading of the texts, there is no clear consensus on a precise definition of maya. Learned members may correct me if this is not the case.

So let's explore.

 

[sravna]

Sravna...
Yes Yes maya sprung out from Nirguna Brahman only.
Sravna being Nirguna doesnt mean One is "Inert" as in unable to "think" sorts or somewhat lifeless.
I feel very reluctant to use words like "think" etc to describe Nirguna Brahman cos Nirguna Brahman is beyond description.

Being beyond description is not as if there is Nothing(Sunyam) but in other words Everything(Purnam) but its just that the human mind cannot phantom it.

So Sravna I rest my case cos more than this I will be doing the error of trying to describe Nirguna Brahman.

Dear Renuka,

I am more comfortable with the idea that nirguna brahman is just pure experience that being a bliss. It is full and not void but I would think that it should not be associated with actions like creation. The notion of saguna brahman fits that better.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

I am more comfortable with the idea that nirguna brahman is just pure experience that being a bliss. It is full and not void but I would think that it should not be associated with actions like creation. The notion of saguna brahman fits that better.

Dear Sravna,

Now that's like creating boundaries and limitations for Nirguna Brahman.
Thats why I said we are going to commit the error of describing Nirguna Brahman according to our taste.

 

[BostonSankara]

I will post up the shakta theories of Devi and Mahamaya when I return later if they have not been posted up by then. Namaste to all.

 

[C RAVI]

Shri Sravna,

If we say that Maya is not the power of Saguna Brahman, than, in what way you feel Maya can be related?

We all know that Maya causes Avidya. It though looks misleading it has the purpose to do so and refine a sole for the better. We as lay men can say that MAYA is a strategy to keep this physical world moving by retaining and stimulating all the senses and there by leading to recurring birth-death-rebirth & creation-destruction-creation.

The powerful strategy must be some uncomprehending entity, the grip of which must be under some one's /something's control. Isn't it?

So, can't we assume that MAYA is a powerful strategy under the controlled administration of Saguna Brahman? And the same Saguna Brahman is under the administration of Nirguna Brahman.

 

[renuka]

I will post up the shakta theories of Devi and Mahamaya when I return later if they have not been posted up by then. Namaste to all.

Sure Boston..that would be really great!!

 

[BostonSankara]

If we take this approach are we not all just fools dressed as scholars talking to ourselves? Surely we have insights to share that have merit and value. I for one enjoy your posts Sri Sarma and would never consider your opinions as such whether I agree with them or not!

All the discussions about mAyA here are erroneous and misleading. They serve only some members' thirst to flaunt their half-baked wisdom.

Have you studied the composition மாயே த்வம் யாஹி மாம் பாதிதும் கா ஹி... by Muthuswamy Deekshitar? மதுரை மணி’s rendering is well-known.

 

[BostonSankara]

Dearest Ammaa,

You are always so refreshing with your humor and lighthearted approach to life and the forum. I actually owe you some thanks for a bit of spiritual development in my life but I will PM you about that separately. have a blessed day!

Your friend in Boston,
Sankara

Maya within Maya within Maya!= Forum within the Internet

within the world!!! :dizzy:

 

[sravna]

Shri Sravna,

If we say that Maya is not the power of Saguna Brahman, than, in what way you feel Maya can be related?

We all know that Maya causes Avidya. It though looks misleading it has the purpose to do so and refine a sole for the better. We as lay men can say that MAYA is a strategy to keep this physical world moving by retaining and stimulating all the senses and there by leading to recurring birth-death-rebirth & creation-destruction-creation.

The powerful strategy must be some uncomprehending entity, the grip of which must be under some one's /something's control. Isn't it?

So, can't we assume that MAYA is a powerful strategy under the controlled administration of Saguna Brahman? And the same Saguna Brahman is under the administration of Nirguna Brahman.

Dear Ravi,

I did not say we should not consider maya as a power of saguna brahman. But only that we have not ruled out that possibility.

Now I have an insight.

The notion of power and attributes in general make sense only within space time. Beyond it it is meaningless to talk of brahman's power etc. So when you say maya is the power of brahman, you are saying it is brahman. Only when we want to describe it in a way that is closer to our normal understanding you say , maya is the power of brahman. IMO, maya is the power of brahman and maya is brahman are equivalent in the given context.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Now that's like creating boundaries and limitations for Nirguna Brahman.
Thats why I said we are going to commit the error of describing Nirguna Brahman according to our taste.

Dear Renuka,

The limitations are not for nirguna brahman but for the lower realities because is not the experience of nirguna brahman all encompassing? and isn't experience is what everything is all about?

 

[sarma-61]

If you are aware of any authoratative views on the subject you are welcome to share it here.

In an earlier posting (may be in this thread itself) Shri Sravna had retorted to one of my observations saying that he did not want ideas to be strait-jacketed by insisting on adherence to scriptures. He had then given the urls of some websites whose stature as authoritative, is doubtful. The same Shri Sravna now asks me to give "authoritative views on the subject". Curious indeed. May be he thinks Muthuswamy Deekshitar to be not a sufficient authority.

The word māyā itself is a later import into advaita. ādiśaṃkara used the words adhyāsa and/or adhyāropa, both words indicating some sort of a cover or veil over the nirguṇa brahman when it takes the form of jīvātmas. To the best of my knowledge and understanding, ādiśaṃkara did not attribute 'creation of the world' by brahman through the use of māyā as a power in his command.

The concept of māyā as seen from śaṃkara’s writings is of a beginningless अनादि (and by itself, endless अन्तहीन) power which is independent of the nirguṇabrahman which is the sole reality according to advaita. This, as I have read in some of the archival pages of this forum, had been discussed in the past, that too threadbare and members like Prof. Nara, Shri sangom, etc., had pried to explain that this constituted one of the most controversial aspects and the Achilles’ heel of advaita.

If I am permitted to move away from the strait-jacket of authoritative source/views (as required by Shri Sravna) I will like to say that the power of life in each living being is unable to function vis-a-vis the external world, except through the sense organs, mind and intellect. Mind and intellect which are constantly being modified by Karmas, modulate (colour) the manner in which cognition by the Life power through the sense organs happens. (For example, one person may be tempted to appropriate a bundle of currency found abandoned on the roadside due to selfishness and greed, but a yogi or a person with a different and more ethical bent of mind, may pass it on to the police.) It is this "covering" or "colouring" of the untarnished Life energy or Power residing within each one of us which is, in fact, māyā. There is no way even the nirguṇa brahman can avoid the effects of this māyā when it is inside the human body except through realization of self, or ātmajnāna, as per the advice of the great śaṃkara.

Waxing eloquent on māyā without reading at least the brahmasūtrabhāṣya is, imho, just a waste of time and not even "general discussion".

 

[sravna]

Shri Sarma said:

In an earlier posting (may be in this thread itself) Shri Sravna had retorted to one of my observations saying that he did not want ideas to be strait-jacketed by insisting on adherence to scriptures. He had then given the urls of some websites whose stature as authoritative, is doubtful. The same Shri Sravna now asks me to give "authoritative views on the subject". Curious indeed. May be he thinks Muthuswamy Deekshitar to be not a sufficient authority.

Shri Sarma has to understand the gist of the argument before he responds . I maintain that in the name of sanctity of scriptures we should not stifle fresh views and interpretations. Otherwise, sooner or later it will be a thing of the past. Now, how many of the present generation accept or even understand the way scriptures are explained? Do they think it is relevant today? Since I possess unequivocal belief in the vedas and fortunately there are people who still do, I think all such should contribute their insights towards putting it in the right perspective so that iot is not dismissed by the present generation and the future generations as something of little practical value and even as some think, I say regretfully, as possessing no substance?

So when I asked for authoratative views I mean something which is cogent and compelling that would make these discussions unnecessary. Because that is what I understood from Shri Sarma's statements and asked him to share those views.


The word māyā itself is a later import into advaita. ādiśaṃkara used the words adhyāsa and/or adhyāropa, both words indicating some sort of a cover or veil over the nirguṇa brahman when it takes the form of jīvātmas. To the best of my knowledge and understanding, ādiśaṃkara did not attribute 'creation of the world' by brahman through the use of māyā as a power in his command.

The concept of māyā as seen from śaṃkara’s writings is of a beginningless अनादि (and by itself, endless अन्तहीन) power which is independent of the nirguṇabrahman which is the sole reality according to advaita. This, as I have read in some of the archival pages of this forum, had been discussed in the past, that too threadbare and members like Prof. Nara, Shri sangom, etc., had pried to explain that this constituted one of the most controversial aspects and the Achilles’ heel of advaita.

If I am permitted to move away from the strait-jacket of authoritative source/views (as required by Shri Sravna) I will like to say that the power of life in each living being is unable to function vis-a-vis the external world, except through the sense organs, mind and intellect. Mind and intellect which are constantly being modified by Karmas, modulate (colour) the manner in which cognition by the Life power through the sense organs happens. (For example, one person may be tempted to appropriate a bundle of currency found abandoned on the roadside due to selfishness and greed, but a yogi or a person with a different and more ethical bent of mind, may pass it on to the police.) It is this "covering" or "colouring" of the untarnished Life energy or Power residing within each one of us which is, in fact, māyā. There is no way even the nirguṇa brahman can avoid the effects of this māyā when it is inside the human body except through realization of self, or ātmajnāna, as per the advice of the great śaṃkara.

What if I say I consider this theory cooked up and not adding any value to the discussion?

Waxing eloquent on māyā without reading at least the brahmasūtrabhāṣya is, imho, just a waste of time and not even "general discussion".

If you have read the brahma sutra bashya and understood it why don't youi make the time really worthwhile by your explanation of maya

 

[sarma-61]

Shri Sarma said:

In an earlier posting (may be in this thread itself) Shri Sravna had retorted to one of my observations saying that he did not want ideas to be strait-jacketed by insisting on adherence to scriptures. He had then given the urls of some websites whose stature as authoritative, is doubtful. The same Shri Sravna now asks me to give "authoritative views on the subject". Curious indeed. May be he thinks Muthuswamy Deekshitar to be not a sufficient authority.

Shri Sarma has to understand the gist of the argument before he responds . I maintain that in the name of sanctity of scriptures we should not stifle fresh views and interpretations. Otherwise, sooner or later it will be a thing of the past. Now, how many of the present generation accept or even understand the way scriptures are explained? Do they think it is relevant today? Since I possess unequivocal belief in the vedas and fortunately there are people who still do, I think all such should contribute their insights towards putting it in the right perspective so that iot is not dismissed by the present generation and the future generations as something of little practical value and even as some think, I say regretfully, as possessing no substance?

So when I asked for authoratative views I mean something which is cogent and compelling that would make these discussions unnecessary. Because that is what I understood from Shri Sarma's statements and asked him to share those views.

If by the word "authoritative" only cogent arguments were intended, then the proper thing was to use the appropriate word and not go by Humpty Dumpty's rule, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

The word māyā itself is a later import into advaita. ādiśaṃkara used the words adhyāsa and/or adhyāropa, both words indicating some sort of a cover or veil over the nirguṇa brahman when it takes the form of jīvātmas. To the best of my knowledge and understanding, ādiśaṃkara did not attribute 'creation of the world' by brahman through the use of māyā as a power in his command.

The concept of māyā as seen from śaṃkara’s writings is of a beginningless अनादि (and by itself, endless अन्तहीन) power which is independent of the nirguṇabrahman which is the sole reality according to advaita. This, as I have read in some of the archival pages of this forum, had been discussed in the past, that too threadbare and members like Prof. Nara, Shri sangom, etc., had pried to explain that this constituted one of the most controversial aspects and the Achilles’ heel of advaita.

If I am permitted to move away from the strait-jacket of authoritative source/views (as required by Shri Sravna) I will like to say that the power of life in each living being is unable to function vis-a-vis the external world, except through the sense organs, mind and intellect. Mind and intellect which are constantly being modified by Karmas, modulate (colour) the manner in which cognition by the Life power through the sense organs happens. (For example, one person may be tempted to appropriate a bundle of currency found abandoned on the roadside due to selfishness and greed, but a yogi or a person with a different and more ethical bent of mind, may pass it on to the police.) It is this "covering" or "colouring" of the untarnished Life energy or Power residing within each one of us which is, in fact, māyā. There is no way even the nirguṇa brahman can avoid the effects of this māyā when it is inside the human body except through realization of self, or ātmajnāna, as per the advice of the great śaṃkara.

What if I say I consider this theory cooked up and not adding any value to the discussion?

Same may be said by me (and others too) about much of what you have written to this day in this forum, don't you agree?

Waxing eloquent on māyā without reading at least the brahmasūtrabhāṣya is, imho, just a waste of time and not even "general discussion".

If you have read the br

ahma sutra bashya and understood it why don't youi make the time really worthwhile by your explanation of maya

What makes you think otherwise is your ignorance of that text, imho.

 

[sravna]

If by the word "authoritative" only cogent arguments were intended, then the proper thing was to use the appropriate word and not go by Humpty Dumpty's rule, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

I suggest you refer a dictionary before you advise me on the usage of words. Anyway for your reference:

compelling : Not able to be refuted; inspiring conviction.
authoratative : (of a text) Considered to be the best of its kind and unlikely to be improved upon


Same may be said by me (and others too) about much of what you have written to this day in this forum, don't you agree?

What makes you think otherwise is your ignorance of that text, imho.

Please understand what I am trying to say. The right way to refute someone's argument is by a sound argument and not by making loose statements. Making such statements is the easiest thing to do but also the most thoughtless.

 

[renuka]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When Krishna said, “Remove the defect in vision, then the author of this Universe can be cognised,” Arjuna sought the cause for this faulty vision. Krishna explained, “Between Me and this universe, there moves maya (delusion). It is indeed a hard task for one to see beyond maya, for maya too is Mine. It is of the same substance; it is My creation and under My control. It will turn in a trice, even the mightiest among men, head over heels! Do not take maya to mean some ugly thing that has descended from somewhere else; it is an attribute of the mind which makes you ignore the true and the eternal Paramatma (Supreme Self) and instead value the manifold multiplicity of Name and Form. It causes the error of believing the body to be the Self, instead of the embodied (the Deha instead of the Dehi). To overcome maya is surely the most difficult task. Only those who are wholeheartedly attached to Me can conquer My maya.”[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]- Geetha Vahini, Chap 13.[/SIZE]​ [/FONT]​ ​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]Attachment is the result of Maya; Maya is the result of Karma (actions). It is desire that deludes and binds. -Baba[/SIZE][/FONT]​

 

[sravna]

When Krishna said, “Remove the defect in vision, then the author of this Universe can be cognised,” Arjuna sought the cause for this faulty vision. Krishna explained, “Between Me and this universe, there moves maya (delusion). It is indeed a hard task for one to see beyond maya, for maya too is Mine. It is of the same substance; it is My creation and under My control. It will turn in a trice, even the mightiest among men, head over heels! Do not take maya to mean some ugly thing that has descended from somewhere else; it is an attribute of the mind which makes you ignore the true and the eternal Paramatma (Supreme Self) and instead value the manifold multiplicity of Name and Form. It causes the error of believing the body to be the Self, instead of the embodied (the Deha instead of the Dehi). To overcome maya is surely the most difficult task. Only those who are wholeheartedly attached to Me can conquer My maya.” [SIZE=-1]- Geetha Vahini, Chap 13.[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=+1]Attachment is the result of Maya; Maya is the result of Karma (actions). It is desire that deludes and binds. -Baba[/SIZE]​

Dear Renuka,

I have these questions for a start:

1) If Saguna brahman created maya, does this not contradict the upanishad you cited which says maya's existence precedes that of saguna brahman?

2) Is maya consciousness too or is it just a power of saguna brahman?

 

[renuka]

The only problem with nirguna brahman being a cause is, even causing can arise only out of thinking which you cannot associate with nirguna brahman. You can only say, if you want to attribute creation to nirguna brahman, that the world keeps repeatedly existing and dissolving forever along with nirguna brahman. That is, it naturally happens. But a small problem is that if physical world is directly associated with nirguna brahman, I think its nature of pure spiritual consciousness disappears. So you need a saguna brahman to be associated with the physical world.

So Sravna..you feel that thinking cant be associated with Nirguna Brahman?
This notion came about becos we are under the impression that thinking is only possible if there is a body, mind etc isnt it?
But does Brahman really have to think to know?


Ok I read up Brahmasutra Bhasya last night(just some small portion).It has the explanation to your query.

Brahman has eternal consciousness by Its very nature so that It has no dependence on the means of knowledge.
More over, in the case of transmigration of the soul,subject to ignorance,the rise of knowledge depends on the body etc but not so in the case of God whose knowledge is free from obstacles.

God is not dependent on body etc and His knowledge has no covering.

"He has no body and no organs;none is seen to be either equal or superior to Him"

The Vedas speak of His diverse supreme powers as also His sponteanous action that is accomplished by His vigour arising from knowledge.

"Without hands and feet He grasp and moves quickly;He sees without eyes,hears without ears.He knows that to be known but none can know Him.
Him they call the first,the great and the all pervasive Entity."

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

I have these questions for a start:

1) If Saguna brahman created maya, does this not contradict the upanishad you cited which says maya's existence precedes that of saguna brahman?

2) Is maya consciousness too or is it just a power of saguna brahman?

1)Sravna..Saguna Brahman did not create Maya as I had earlier said.
Where does it state in the link I pasted above that Saguna Brahman created Maya?

2)Maya is the power of Brahman.

 

[sravna]

So Sravna..you feel that thinking cant be associated with Nirguna Brahman?
This notion came about becos we are under the impression that thinking is only possible if there is a body, mind etc isnt it?


Ok I read up Brahmasutra Bhasya last night(just some small portion).It has the explanation to your query.

Brahman has eternal consciousness by Its very nature so that It has no dependence on the means of knowledge.
More over, in the case of transmigration of the soul,subject to ignorance,the rise of knowledge depends on the body etc but not so in the case of God whose knowledge is free from obstacles.

God is not dependent on body etc and His knowledge has no covering.

"He has no body and no organs;none is seen to be either equal or superior to Him"

The Vedas speak of His diverse supreme powers as also His sponteanous action that is accomplished by His vigour arising from knowledge.

"Without hands and feet He grasp and moves quickly;He sees without eyes,hears without ears.He knows that to be known but none can know Him.
Him they call the first,the great and the all pervasive Entity."

Dear Renuka,

I am saying thinking should not be associated with nirguna brahman because it is mental action. Nirguna brahman being spiritual and timeless cannot be attributed an action. You would want to be faithful to the concept of nirguna brahman, don't you? You cannot define it to be spiritual and attribute actions to it? Nirguna brahman is just existence, consciousness and bliss which is the most exalted way to be.

 

[sravna]

1)Sravna..Saguna Brahman did not create Maya as I had earlier said.
Where does it state in the link I pasted above that Saguna Brahman created Maya?

2)Maya is the power of Brahman.

Dear Renuka,

Is not Lord Krishna deemed as saguna brahman?

IMO as I argued in my earlier post, attributes such as power have meaning only in a physical reality. In a spiritual one where there is no distinction of any sort, it doesn't make sense to talk of power or any attribute in general

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

I am saying thinking should not be associated with nirguna brahman because it is mental action. Nirguna brahman being spiritual and timeless cannot be attributed an action. You would want to be faithful to the concept of nirguna brahman, don't you? You cannot define it to be spiritual and attribute actions to it? Nirguna brahman is just existence, consciousness and bliss which is the most exalted way to be.

Sravna,

I know what you mean..but cos you dont want to attribute a mind to It.
Yes that way you are right but that doesnt mean that Nirguna Brahman needs a mind to know or needs to think to know.I had edited the earlier post by adding a line "does Brahman need a to think to know?
The answer is No..Brahman is not limited by the body,mind etc unlike us humans.
So hence the Vedic text "He knows that to be known but none can know Him"

I cant understand why you feel this:

But a small problem is that if physical world is directly associated with nirguna brahman, I think its nature of pure spiritual consciousness disappears. So you need a saguna brahman to be associated with the physical world.

Why should this happen even if the physical world is directly associated with Nirguna Brahman.
The physical world is under the sway of Maya and its three Gunas and Lord Krishna has clearly mentioned in the Geeta that the The Gunas are contained in Me but I am not in them.

Isn't that clear enough that no matter what Nirguna Brahman remains ever pure?

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Is not Lord Krishna deemed as saguna brahman?

IMO as I argued in my earlier post, attributes such as power have meaning only in a physical reality. In a spiritual one where there is no distinction of any sort, it doesn't make sense to talk of power or any attribute in general

Dear Sravna,

Ok look at this mantra

Gurur Brahman Gurur Vishnu
Gurur Devo Mahesvara
Gurussakshat Parabrahma
Tasmai Shri Gurave Namah.

This is equating the Guru who is enlightening us to the Trinity of Brahma,Vishnu,Mahesvara and also Para Brahman.
In reality is the human guru actually that state?
The human guru is playing the above said role isnt it?

So Lord Krishna needs to take the role of Nirguna Brahman when He says all this in Geeta.
Otherwise how would He give the Geeta to Arjuna?
Lord Krishna takes the role of NirgunaBrahman(Paramaatma) and Arjuna takes the role of Jeevaatma.

For explanation purposes you have to accept Lord Krishna in the role of Nirguna Brahman.
Otherwise it would be a silent movie of Brahman calling Brahman.

 

[sravna]

Sravna,

I cant understand why you feel this:

Why should this happen even if the physical world is directly associated with Nirguna Brahman.
The physical world is under the sway of Maya and its three Gunas and Lord Krishna has clearly mentioned in the Geeta that the The Gunas are contained in Me but I am not in them.

Isn't that clear enough that no matter what Nirguna Brahman remains ever pure?

Dear Renuka,

I am not saying that nirguna brahman might be swayed by maya if it is associated with the physical world. But doesn't asociation mean it perceives the physical world though not be swayed by it?, which means its consciousness is not a purely spiritual one.