PDA

View Full Version : Brahman has no guna?



suresh
03 August 2007, 11:36 AM
Does the nirguna of advaita mean "devoid of all gunas"? If so, is Brahman without any guna at all? Wouldn't this make brahman similar to the buddhist idea of sunya?

OTOH, if nirguna means "devoid of triguna", does it mean Brahman has qualities which we're not capable of grasping? In that case, advaita will be no different from other schools like dvaita, VA, because they also hold similar views.

Which one of the following is true?

*Brahman empty of all guna

or

*Brahman full of gunas but empty of triguna?

Hope learned members can help.

atanu
03 August 2007, 12:36 PM
Does the nirguna of advaita mean "devoid of all gunas"? If so, is Brahman without any guna at all? Wouldn't this make brahman similar to the buddhist idea of sunya?

OTOH, if nirguna means "devoid of triguna", does it mean Brahman has qualities which we're not capable of grasping? In that case, advaita will be no different from other schools like dvaita, VA, because they also hold similar views.

Which one of the following is true?

*Brahman empty of all guna

or

*Brahman full of gunas but empty of triguna?

Hope learned members can help.

Namaste Suresh,

What does empty of trigunas mean?

Om

sarabhanga
04 August 2007, 06:21 AM
Namaste Suresh,

Nirguna Brahman is without guna (quality) ~ not entirely lacking or void, but rather in the sense of being beyond any particular qualification, condition, or attribute. Nirguna Brahman is the absolute, unqualified Brahman ~ without quality but providing the substrate for all qualities. Saguna Brahman can say “I am this, and this” (ad infinitum), but Nirguna Brahman only says “I am”. ;)

saidevo
04 August 2007, 08:21 AM
Namaste Suresh.



1 & 2. Nirguna Brahman is without guna (quality) ~ not entirely lacking or void, but rather in the sense of being beyond any particular qualification, condition, or attribute.

3. Nirguna Brahman is the absolute, unqualified Brahman ~ without quality but providing the substrate for all qualities.

4. Saguna Brahman can say “I am this, and this” (ad infinitum), but Nirguna Brahman only says “I am”. ;)


This analogy may perhaps be helpful in understanding the ideas presented above: deep sleep (suSupti) that we go into every night.

1. Deep sleep is not entirely lacking or void: there is a break in consciousness, the physical and dream worlds vanish, the mind withdraws into Atma, we are aware of nothing. Yet we remain the very same person when we wake up the next morning, all our vAsanAs (impressions) intact.

2. Deep sleep is beyond any particular qualification, condition, or attribute: there is no light or color yet it is not darkness, no atmosphere yet it is not void, no ideation yet it is not death. Everything is still, inert and frozen and the Self does not see it, or at least remember seeing it. Only the Self is there immersed in the Unity around.

3. Deep sleep is the absolute, unqualified ~ without quality but providing the substrate for all qualities: In our existence as a human being we pass through the cycle of three states every day: wakefulness, dreamful sleep, deep sleep. The worlds we see and create in the first two states are unreal in the sense they change every moment at their elementary levels. The 'world' that exists in deep sleep is the only Reality on which the other states are built and projected.

This absolute state reflects the SatChitAnanda state of Brahman. It is Sat--the absolute Reality, Chit--absolute Consciousness and Ananda--absolute Bliss. Again these Sat, Chit, Ananda are not attributes or qualities because they don't exist or expressed independently in that Infinity/Eternity. In deep sleep our Self gets beyond manifestation and touches this state of SatChitAnanda, yet with all its impressions intact.

4. Since there is only the Self in deep sleep, it is the existence 'I am'. This Atma manifests as Jiva from the Sat with its impressions that lie dormant in the Chit of deep sleep. Once this manifestation takes place the existence 'I am' changes to 'I am this' and the Ananda is lost, albeit temporarily.

"Death is like falling asleep,
and birth is like waking from that sleep." -- TiruvaLLuvar

It is the break in consciousness that gives us only a iota of remembrance and the feeling 'I slept well last night.' Unable to express the Ananda of the deep sleep state, we translate it into the feeling of a good sleep. If we can have the continuity of consciousness in all the three states, then we can start having the Bliss in all those states and have a taste of Self-Realization.

The English terms 'falling into sleep', and 'fast asleep' are expressive. Just as a wave falls back into the ocean we fall into sleep. Just as the shutters are made fast to lull the flow of water into stillness, we are fast asleep.

My comparasion of deep sleep with Nirguna Brahman may seem flippant because they are not identical, yet it could serve to get some idea of That which cannot be understood my mind or intellect.

Or can we perhaps say that like the Atman, Brahaman also has its three states of conditional and cyclic reality projected over a part of its Infinity and under its Eternity? The Nirguna Brahman is its deep sleep state, the state of SatChitAnanda between the cycles of creation. The Saguna Brahman is the dream state, a maya with its changing and conditional reality. The Atman manifesting as Jivas is the wakeful state of the universe and its beings.

There is one difference, though. Atman manifests itself in full into Jiva, whereas Brahman manifests only a part of Itself.

atanu
04 August 2007, 10:11 AM
Dear Suresh,

I suppose by trigunas you mean the triple categories of Gunas: Sattwik, Rajasic, and Tamasic. With this assumption I will ask you "What are those gunas which are beyond the scope of the three categories?"

Om

Madhavan
04 August 2007, 10:28 AM
Dear Suresh,

I suppose by trigunas you mean the triple categories of Gunas: Sattwik, Rajasic, and Tamasic. With this assumption I will ask you "What are those gunas which are beyond the scope of the three categories?"

Om

Such guna might be like: imperishability, invincibility, immutability etc

I think Nirguna Brahman= energy(shakti) which is unutilized in its raw form where it is not differentiated into different kinds.

Saguna Brahman = It is the sum total of different kinds of energies like gravitational, magnetic, electrostatic etc all of which have their origin in the raw source. Yet Saguna Brahman=Nirguna Brahman in total energy which is infinite.

Madhavan
04 August 2007, 12:20 PM
If the concept of two Brahmans is confusing, it is better understood this way.

What is Brahman? Scriptures tell us that the essential nature of Brahman is undescribable, ungraspable, a being, a non being and so forth. This is the Nirguna Brahman. When viewed as the ruler of this universe ( which has come about through his maya shakti) he is called Saguna Brahman. Since "ruler of the universe" does not fully describe the Brahman or throw light on his essential nature the two Brahmans are not exactly identical in scope( hence the need for the dual concept), but refer to the same Absolute Being - it is like a person wearing costume for a fancy dress competition which will be cast off after the show.

suresh
04 August 2007, 12:23 PM
Namaskara Sarabhanga,


Namaste Suresh,

Nirguna Brahman is without guna (quality) ~ not entirely lacking or void,

NG has no guna, NG is not void. Is there anything other than these two states of existence?


Nirguna Brahman is the absolute, unqualified Brahman ~ without quality but providing the substrate for all qualities.Would it be reasonable to consider this as a special quality or power of NG (that it could be substrate of all qualities despite itself possessing none)?

suresh
04 August 2007, 12:31 PM
Namskara Saidevo,


Namaste Suresh.

2. Deep sleep is beyond any particular qualification, condition, or attribute:

There is peace in deep sleep. So how can we say it's beyond any particular qualification etc.? If there's an experience of deep sleep, then deep sleep cannot be a void. If there's no experience of deep sleep, then deep sleep must be a void. How can we conclude there's a third state?

yajvan
04 August 2007, 05:54 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Such guna might be like: imperishability, invincibility, immutability etc

I think Nirguna Brahman= energy(shakti) which is unutilized in its raw form where it is not differentiated into different kinds.

Saguna Brahman = It is the sum total of different kinds of energies like gravitational, magnetic, electrostatic etc all of which have their origin in the raw source. Yet Saguna Brahman=Nirguna Brahman in total energy which is infinite.

Namaste Madvan & suresh, (et.al)
A very good conversation. What do the rishi's say about this? Tad Ekam, That One ( neither he or she). There is only one Brahman. To help understand this though, we are stuck with words and concepts. Hence, the Niguna and Saguna ( same coin, just two sides of it). Niguna is quality-less.As many call it Aksara [ a=not + ksi=destroy or perish].

I think Madvan was going there in this post... just pure potential, without bounds.

The Guna's do not come into being until there is manifestation. Then the play of these gunas brings us the world, the universe. These three properties are Prakriti ( now we have just switched to Samkaya thinking as we have added Prakriti to the conversation) are really its very constituents, not merely qualifications. Like 3 strands of a rope. Together they go as the rope, yet of 3 strands. They are responsible for giving us the 5 tattvas (elements), the 5 organs of knowledge, the 5 organs of action, etc. 24 principles are laid out in the Samkaya philosophy and then there is the 25th Purusha.


They , the gunas, work amongst themselves, just as Krsna says in the Bhagavad Gita. It is the gunas that act on themselves. (Chapt 3.27 Gita). Krsna says 'be without the 3 gunas' (Chpt 2.45). What ? how do you do that , if this entire universe is operated by their inter-twining actions. How can we be without them? Krsna gives directions, yet the one that is relevant to this post is chapt 4.35, as He says ' Know this O son of Pandu, you will no more fall into such delusions; for through this you will see all beings in your SELF, and also in Me" .


You got to ask , what is 'this' Krsna refers to? Knowing Reality. Where is this 'Reality' in us? that is the discussion we are stepping though , point by point in this HDF Post series: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1773


We're trying to lay it out so to avoid being too esoteric and to have folks get a feel that this 'Reality' is not out there some where, but so close to us, its part of every thing we do... perhaps you will have a chance to participate there, as suresh has started. The framework is still being laid out, and the key is in turiya...this is where we will find the answer, in ther 4th.


pranams,

sarabhanga
04 August 2007, 07:26 PM
Namaste Madhavan, Suresh, et al.

I would suggest that imperishability, immutability, etc., are sAttvika qualities.

nirguNa brahma is like “potential energy”, and as such (shakti being considered as feminine), this barren expanse of creative potential may be equated with nirRti (“dissolution”). Her absolute sterility (purity), however, is strangely pregnant with all creative possibilities ~ and this may be the origin for stories of “virgin birth”.

The concept of two brahmaNI is just like the concept of nara-nArAyaNa.

See: hari-hara (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=14368#post14368)

And, as the foundation of all qualities, nirguNa brahma (the pure “I am”) is absolute Being ~ the abstract essence of Existence itself.

Nuno Matos
04 August 2007, 10:45 PM
Namaste Sarabhanga

You said that, " The concept of two brahmaNI is just like the concept of nara-nArAyaNa". Withe which i full agree ( it was well explained)!
Now can you say that the metaphysical concept of shiva and shackti is the same that of nara-narayana or this last one represents some other order of viewing things (perspective) all thought in a general philosophical sense (advaita vedanta) you can say, yes they mean the same thing?:)

I have learned that narayana means or represents the core individual self, the jiva in a human being and it is in its representation half lizard half human. In my understanding the purusha/prakrti of the samkhia tantra tradition ( 36 tatvas)!
Thank you!

Om namah Sri Guru Datta !

saidevo
04 August 2007, 11:35 PM
Namaste Suresh.



There is peace in deep sleep. So how can we say it's beyond any particular qualification etc.?


Using Sarabhanga's words, I said "Deep sleep is beyond any particular qualification, condition, or attribute:..."

You say there is peace in deep sleep. What is peace? Is it a quality to describe? A condition? Or an attribute of something?

Peace is essentially inactivity. Stillness. Tranquility. The ultimate, frozen reality in practical terms. These terms are only suggestive, not descriptive of peace because peace is to be experienced and realized and is beyond mental or intellectual description. Peace is not a condition because it is the very nature, the ultimate Reality. And peace does not take any attributes because there is nothing to qualify or describe it.



If there's an experience of deep sleep, then deep sleep cannot be a void. If there's no experience of deep sleep, then deep sleep must be a void. How can we conclude there's a third state?


An experience is one that is realized and remembered, not just imagined and thought about. The peace of deep sleep is definitely an experience; but unlike the experiences of the dream state and the waking state it is not realized at the time it is experienced, only remembered upon the change to the waking state. Since it is remembered that 'I had a peaceful sleep' when a person wakes up, we conclude that there is a third state which is beyond te mind and the senses.

atanu
05 August 2007, 12:05 AM
Namaskara Sarabhanga,

------
Would it be reasonable to consider this as a special quality or power of NG (that it could be substrate of all qualities despite itself possessing none)?


Namaste,

Yes, more or less. Else, it is like saying that such and such person is fart, since fart issues from him.

Sorry.


The gunas are of Prakriti, including invincibilty. For ONE Brahman what is invincibility and immutability?

13.15 Sarvendriyagunaabhaasam sarvendriyavivarjitam;
Asaktam sarvabhricchaiva nirgunam gunabhoktru cha.

13.15. Shining by the functions of all the senses, yet without the senses; unattached, yet supporting all; devoid of qualities, yet their experiencer,


Om Namah Shivaya

Madhavan
05 August 2007, 01:25 AM
I think Madvan was going there in this post... just pure potential, without bounds.


Yes, that is about it: Pure Potential without qualififying it. But even the term potential is again a human idea. By the term quality we are again imposing human ideas: If Brahman cannot be described and is non dual, how do we know if it has qualities or not? Saying that Brahman has no qualities is again a human idea because we do not know what Brahman is( expressed through prAkrtic ideas) That is why to eliminate the idea that Brahman is a void, Brahman is not assigned qualities, but rather equated with the quality under consideration. Brahman is existance itself, Brahman is imperishability itself, invincibility itself , Brahman is wholeness itself which rule out any possibility for Brahman being void inspite of being guna less. Wholeness and voidness are poles apart.

Madhavan
05 August 2007, 01:35 AM
Namaste Madhavan, Suresh, et al.

I would suggest that imperishability, immutability, etc., are sAttvika qualities.



Namaste.

Do you agree that the mind is a sAttvik organ? But it is perishable. Even the universal mind mahat is perishable which happens during praLaya. That is why I tend to think of imperishability as beyond the three gunas. Atleast from suresh's POV who might not agree that imperishability=immutability=existance and might prefer to have them as distinct qualities beyond the triguna.

My idea would be like

Nirguna --> Saguna --has--> Nityaguna (aprakritic)
Nirguna --> Saguna --originates--> Triguna (prakritic)

The nature of triguna is avidya while that of nityaguna is mAyA. It is these unique gunas of Isvara like bala, aisvarya, tejas, shakti etc that we call him as bhagavAn and worship him. If you have referred to these 'nitya gunas' as sAttvika gunas ( different from the sattva of prakriti) then it is the same thing.

Nuno Matos
05 August 2007, 04:23 AM
Namaste Madhavan


You said, "The nature of triguna is avidya while that of nityaguna is mAyA".
I would like to ask how do you find any difference between Maya and Avidya from a seekers point of view? Aren't this two concepts the same thing. Are you saying that the absolute Brahman is an illusion caused by time ( maya)? If it is so is perishable. Do not forget that the map is not the territory! And the triguna model (hara-hari) has the potential of universality so its good for learners.
Satva in my opinion are the scriptures (madhu) that flow in the jiva from that same Brahman i.e pure absolute conscience which as no gunas at all ( the one without a second) and is only influenced ( this satva) by the other gunas operating in the jiva under maya powers (time & circunstance). In fact satva is so perishable and instable as any of the other gunas, to get it into permanence you must go beyond all gunas beyond all concepts, beyond duality. There are no such thing as good (superior) and bad (inferior) satva.


Brhadaranyaka Upanishad

V,i

Om.

Fullness beyond, Fullness here:
Fullness from fullness doth proceed.
From fullness fullness take away:
Fullness yet remains

atanu
05 August 2007, 04:44 AM
Namaste.

---My idea would be like

Nirguna --> Saguna --has--> Nityaguna (aprakritic)
Nirguna --> Saguna --originates--> Triguna (prakritic)

The nature of triguna is avidya while that of nityaguna is mAyA. It is these unique gunas of Isvara like bala, aisvarya, tejas, shakti etc that we call him as bhagavAn and worship him. If you have referred to these 'nitya gunas' as sAttvika gunas ( different from the sattva of prakriti) then it is the same thing.

Namaste,

I think Nuno has valid point. Nuno has already pointed out that Maya flows from Prakriti of Brahman only and is not another entity.

In the above classification Nirguna is still the untouched, in both cases, which is a somewhat forced classification. Why don't we then associate the so-called poor tamasic gunas also to the first Saguna Brahman? The point is that Atma is Na Lipayate -- and to realise which the advaita nirgunam has to be known after all.


Om

yajvan
05 August 2007, 08:53 AM
Hari OM
~~~~~~

Yes, that is about it: Pure Potential without qualifying it. But even the term potential is again a human idea. By the term quality we are again imposing human ideas: If Brahman cannot be described and is non dual, how do we know if it has qualities or not? .

Nasmaste Madavan,
You bring up fair points. Yet as human we are stuck with words. One Shankachara when asked the same question What is this Brahm, this fullness, said nothing. To to wise in the audience, they knew his answer,
indescribable. To those that were novice, they seen his not talking as something completely different.

When we look to Brahman 1/4th they say make of this total universe and we are not even at a level of understanding the other 3/4th. When I look to get a better appreciation of this Brahman, the Upanishads have always done the job. The 10 primary Upanishads. Some say 13, or the ones Badarayana-muni uses for the Brahma-sutras ( some call the Vedanta sutras). Yet not having a good translation also leaves one at a dis-advantage. I have been blessed to have spent time with one who lives this fullness many talk about. Without this foundation, at least for me, I would be scratching my head on many concepts. For this I am blessed.

There is no doubt in my mind as to the Fullness, the total inclusiveness of Brahman. I see it expressed daily. We talk of Tad Ekam (That One) to get an appreciation for this fullness, this ubiquity. For this, reading and discussing the Upanishads are a boon. As too the Gita, and the 5th Veda, the Mahabharata. Yet the formula, for me, has been to combine this with kriya yoga to the best of my ability that I can perform it as a house holder. My teacher always said, its knowledge and experience, one without the other is not a complete.

pranams,

saidevo
05 August 2007, 10:00 AM
Namaste Madhavan and others.


Yes, that is about it: Pure Potential without qualififying it. But even the term potential is again a human idea. By the term quality we are again imposing human ideas: If Brahman cannot be described and is non dual, how do we know if it has qualities or not? Saying that Brahman has no qualities is again a human idea because we do not know what Brahman is( expressed through prAkrtic ideas)


Here is a quote from the Pranava Vada as translated by Bhagavan Das:


These many methods have to be studied by everyone who would understand the real significance of Brahman. And they have to be studied in the World-process (Samsara) itself, that is to say, by observation of it all around us. For there is no greater teacher than this World-process itself and study thereof is the real and genuine Tapas and Yoga, austerity and self-development. To know all is to know Brahman. It should be borne in mind however that to know all in the totality of its endless detail is not achievable in any limited space and time. Only the All itself knows the all.Various sciences study only various aspects of Brahman or Samsara. What is needed and is possible is that the student should secure a general idea of the whole and of its unity. Such knowledge is the source of that deliberate and true altruism which arises necessarily in the Jiva which has attained to Nivrtti and universalism.


Thus the knowledge of Brahman commences with the let-go of the egoism (I am this) and selfishness (It is mine), then pass the stage of altruism (others are so me and mine are theirs) and reach universalism (me and the others are all part of the One Universal Self).

Madhavan
05 August 2007, 10:29 AM
Namaste Madhavan


You said, "The nature of triguna is avidya while that of nityaguna is mAyA".
I would like to ask how do you find any difference between Maya and Avidya from a seekers point of view? Aren't this two concepts the same thing. Are you saying that the absolute Brahman is an illusion caused by time ( maya)? If it is so is perishable. Do not forget that the map is not the territory! And the triguna model (hara-hari) has the potential of universality so its good for learners.
Satva in my opinion are the scriptures (madhu) that flow in the jiva from that same Brahman i.e pure absolute conscience which as no gunas at all ( the one without a second) and is only influenced ( this satva) by the other gunas operating in the jiva under maya powers (time & circunstance). In fact satva is so perishable and instable as any of the other gunas, to get it into permanence you must go beyond all gunas beyond all concepts, beyond duality. There are no such thing as good (superior) and bad (inferior) satva.


Brhadaranyaka Upanishad

V,i

Om.

Fullness beyond, Fullness here:
Fullness from fullness doth proceed.
From fullness fullness take away:
Fullness yet remains

Avidya is non existant at the the paramArtika while mAyA is identical with Brahman. The jnAni does not percieve avidya, but knows mAyA as identical to Brahman. ( which is same as the hari-hara model)

From a seeker's point of view he is concerned only with avidya while mAyA is still very far away to be overcome. Almost every form of Hindu sAdhana is based and based on removing avidya.

All beings that distinguish themselves from one another and in ignorance of Isvara are said to be in avidya. These include man,animals, plants, and lower forms of dieites like gandharvas, charanas. karma devatas etc. Those beings who percieve the Saguna Brahman( in various capacities) are said to be beyond avidya but still under the influence of mAyA - this is the state of beings who exist in the blissful highest worlds like Satya Loka or Vaikunta or kailasa( these are states of consciousness where there is no rebirth even though individual ego is present). Those who have crossed this stage and completely rid of individual ego and know that mAyA and Brahman to be one and the same - these are the jIvanmuktas.

Two kinds of Sattva gunas have to be admitted because scriptures declare so: The gunas of the Saguna Brahman are eternal while those of the perishable universe are not. If you classify imperishability as a sAttvika guna does it not follow that it is eternal?

Madhavan
05 August 2007, 10:59 AM
Namaste,

I think Nuno has valid point. Nuno has already pointed out that Maya flows from Prakriti of Brahman only and is not another entity.

In the above classification Nirguna is still the untouched, in both cases, which is a somewhat forced classification. Why don't we then associate the so-called poor tamasic gunas also to the first Saguna Brahman? The point is that Atma is Na Lipayate -- and to realise which the advaita nirgunam has to be known after all.


Om

Saguna Brahman has for his body, the universe. So your scheme of associating the triguna with Saguna Brahman is also correct. However, what exactly is the difference between jIva, jaDa and Saguna Brahman? That is where it is a good idea to separate out their gunas. jIva is veiled under the pacha kosha which is triguna, The pancha koshas( which cause kArmic bonds) do not touch Isvara because of his different nature from the jIva. JIva and jaDa are of the nature of trigunas. Isvara is above these gunas and ultimately nirguna. How do you bring out the fact that Isvara is not influenced by the triguna? By having Isvara as the originator( as tattva mUrti as opposed to tattvAs themselves) of these gunas rather than possessing these gunas. Avidya is best called anAtman( non Atman) which has Atman as the basis for existance and non existant ultimately.

atanu
05 August 2007, 11:21 AM
------
Those beings who percieve the Saguna Brahman( in various capacities) are said to be beyond avidya but still under the influence of mAyA - this is the state of beings who exist in the blissful highest worlds like Satya Loka or Vaikunta or kailasa( these are states of consciousness where there is no rebirth even though individual ego is present).


Namaste Madhavan,

I have not come across such shruti. Will be benefited, if you cited the relevant shruti.



------
-----
Two kinds of Sattva gunas have to be admitted because scriptures declare so: The gunas of the Saguna Brahman are eternal while those of the perishable universe are not. If you classify imperishability as a sAttvika guna does it not follow that it is eternal?



Again will be benefited by the relevant shruti, where it is said that sattwic gunas are of two kinds (please do not cite purports). I do not have any problem with a particular perspective in purport, but such purport do not over-rule shruti (or smriti).


And if imperishability (of the Saguna Brahman) is an eternal quality then why perishability not an eternal quality? Beings of world are also eternally perishable.

Gunas as such are eternal, since the origin is eternal. That does not make Brahman qualifiable through Gunas.

13.15 Sarvendriyagunaabhaasam sarvendriyavivarjitam;
Asaktam sarvabhricchaiva nirgunam gunabhoktru cha.

13.32 Anaaditwaan nirgunatwaat paramaatmaayam avyayah;
Shareerastho’pi kaunteya na karoti na lipyate.


I have removed the english translation to not allow any bias to creep in. Param Atma is indeed called nirgunam in Gita.


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
05 August 2007, 11:37 AM
---- However, what exactly is the difference between jIva, jaDa and Saguna Brahman? That is where it is a good idea to separate out their gunas. jIva is veiled under the pacha kosha which is triguna, The pancha koshas( which cause kArmic bonds) do not touch Isvara because of his different nature from the jIva. JIva and jaDa are of the nature of trigunas. Isvara is above these gunas and ultimately nirguna. How do you bring out the fact that Isvara is not influenced by the triguna? By having Isvara as the originator( as tattva mUrti as opposed to tattvAs themselves) of these gunas rather than possessing these gunas. Avidya is best called anAtman( non Atman) which has Atman as the basis for existance and non existant ultimately.

Namaste Madhavan,

I mostly agree to you from the point of view of convenience. But as you have not denied the possibility of Jivan Mukti, you have also to agree that the difference between Jiva and Brahman, is of ignorance.

As you have premised that Ishwara is ultimately nirguna -- so is Jiva ultimately nirguna.

It has been pointed out earlier that the gunas are of prakriti, which have opposites. What is EKO and ETERNAL have no opposites. Invincible against whom? And the question of perishabilty does not arise. These are words alone, which do not exist beyond vak. But scriptures do use word nirgunam to explain Brahman.

In finality, Shri Krishna says that the truth is known in samadhi alone.

Regards,

Om

Madhavan
05 August 2007, 11:48 AM
Namaste.

Namaste Madhavan,

I have not come across such shruti. Will be benefited, if you cited the relevant shruti.



Sruti for what? For the existance of the abode of Saguna Brahman where jIvas reside with Isvara being freed of all Karma and rebirth? This has been explicitly discussed in the BSB of Sri ShankarAcArya. (read Phala AdhyAya). The source is found in all major purANAs.





Again will be benefited by the relevant shruti, where it is said that sattwic gunas are of two kinds (please do not cite purports). I do not have any problem with a particular perspective in purport, but such purport do not over-rule shruti (or smriti).


The sattva guna of Prakriti, which is the mind is perishable. Isvara's gunas are imperishable. That is why the classification.



And if imperishability (of the Saguna Brahman) is an eternal quality then why perishability not an eternal quality? Beings of world are also eternally perishable.


You have answered it yourself. Imperishability itself implies eternality while perishability implies destruction, and hence non eternal.




Gunas as such are eternal, since the origin is eternal. That does not make Brahman qualifiable through Gunas.

13.15 Sarvendriyagunaabhaasam sarvendriyavivarjitam;
Asaktam sarvabhricchaiva nirgunam gunabhoktru cha.

13.32 Anaaditwaan nirgunatwaat paramaatmaayam avyayah;
Shareerastho’pi kaunteya na karoti na lipyate.


I have removed the english translation to not allow any bias to creep in. Param Atma is indeed called nirgunam in Gita.


Om Namah Shivaya

The reason is simple. The cycle of creation is eternal( will never stop) hence Saguna Brahman is eternal and so are his qualities. To those who have transcended the cycle of creation, all guNas merge into the one Absolute. This is purely a perspective oriented answer. Is Brahman nirguna? Yes. Is Saguna Brahman and his guNas eternal? Yes. The cosmic dance goes on and on.

Madhavan
05 August 2007, 12:15 PM
Namaste Madhavan,

I mostly agree to you from the point of view of convenience. But as you have not denied the possibility of Jivan Mukti, you have also to agree that the difference between Jiva and Brahman, is of ignorance.

As you have premised that Ishwara is ultimately nirguna -- so is Jiva ultimately nirguna.

It has been pointed out earlier that the gunas are of prakriti, which have opposites. What is EKO and ETERNAL have no opposites. Invincible against whom? And the question of perishabilty does not arise. These are words alone, which do not exist beyond vak. But scriptures do use word nirgunam to explain Brahman.

In finality, Shri Krishna says that the truth is known in samadhi alone.

Regards,

Om

You are right: From the paramArtika, Brahman, Isvara and jIva have no differences. I have mostly given my views from the seeker's( which is u and me) perspective. Most of our every day activities are from the seeker's perspective isnt it, including the very words you type - so vAk is very important. It is equally suficient to understand Brahman as either nirguna or saguna because both refer to the same absolute. Since vAk identifies Saguna Brahman very efficiently most teachers have used this definition for Brahman and easy to understand for everybody. Saguna Brahman must be treated as the most enlightened being in existance and hence the ultimate guru of all. His qualities have to reverred until one reaches that state. Since there is no easy way to contemplate upon the Absolute Nirgunam, it makes sense that the only object fit for meditation is the Saguna Brahman - this is paroxa jnAna.

yajvan
05 August 2007, 01:03 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Madhavan and others.

Here is a quote from the Pranava Vada as translated by Bhagavan Das:

Thus the knowledge of Brahman commences with the let-go of the egoism (I am this) and selfishness (It is mine), then pass the stage of altruism (others are so me and mine are theirs) and reach universalism (me and the others are all part of the One Universal Self).

Namaste saideveo et.al,
Very wise words as we we find this too in the Maitreya Upanishad.

Sakayanya muni says, "Borne along and defiled by the stream of qualities, unsteady, wavering, bewildered, full of desire, distracted, one goes on into the state of self-conceit in thinking, 'This is I' and 'That is mine' one binds himself with himself , as does a bird with a snare."

Yet it seems that casting this off, the mine, and me, does take getting passed some baggage that comes with us.

pranams.

atanu
05 August 2007, 01:31 PM
You are right: From the paramArtika, Brahman, Isvara and jIva have no differences. I have mostly given my views from the seeker's( which is u and me) perspective. ----

Namaste,

You are absolutely correct. The paramathika is the Jnana perspective. Of what use are the discussions from avidya perspective? To give an example of Ramana Maharshi: "Who will sit and count how many hairs have been cut? The cut hairs will simply be discarded."

Even to reach the feet of Ishwara, it is essential to know about the Atma, which is Na Lipayate, else, Shri Krishna would not have taught:

13.13 Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute;
Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.

13.13 I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.



Since in your earlier post you have already said: Is Brahman nirguna? Yes.

So, the matter rests here. That is all. I will not insist on the shruti verses. Number of classes of the sattwa gunas is immaterial towards attainment of Turiya, which is the goal.



Only I would like to point out the following:



------- Isvara's gunas are imperishable. That is why the classification.



Gunas are of Prakriti and not of Iswara’s, who is controller of the Gunas of Prakriti.


Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya



Note:

One must distinguish between the guna bound (who may be perishable due to attachment to rajas/tamas or may go towards immortality via sattwa) and the gunas (which are eternal).

Madhavan
05 August 2007, 03:11 PM
Namaste,

You are absolutely correct. The paramathika is the Jnana perspective. Of what use are the discussions from avidya perspective? To give an example of Ramana Maharshi: "Who will sit and count how many hairs have been cut? The cut hairs will simply be discarded."

Even to reach the feet of Ishwara, it is essential to know about the Atma, which is Na Lipayate, else, Shri Krishna would not have taught:




I tend to think that Jnana perspective=theory and Avidya perspective=practice. How many activities in our daily lives are based on the jnana perspective? On the other hand, you will note that almost all our activities are based on the avidya perspective including our religeous duties starting from nitya karmAs or pujas. Most of the vedas only deal with Saguna Brahman so much so that Shankaracharya in his BSB while explaining the gati samanvayAt sutra states that Saguna Brahman is the uniform purport of the scripture.

To cite an example:

In the jnAna perspective, there is no one in bondage, no one in liberation, no one doing any sAdhana. Would this be a focal point to discuss anything practical?

In the avidya perspective, we see that plurality exists, misery exists, there is bondage, karma and rebirth - and almost every action we do is from this point of view. Avidya brings us to the need to seek release from bondage, perform our duties...a reality you cannot ignore no matter what u believe in.

Madhavan
06 August 2007, 12:57 AM
~~~~~~


Nasmaste Madavan,
You bring up fair points. Yet as human we are stuck with words. One Shankachara when asked the same question What is this Brahm, this fullness, said nothing. To to wise in the audience, they knew his answer,
indescribable. To those that were novice, they seen his not talking as something completely different.

When we look to Brahman 1/4th they say make of this total universe and we are not even at a level of understanding the other 3/4th. When I look to get a better appreciation of this Brahman, the Upanishads have always done the job. The 10 primary Upanishads. Some say 13, or the ones Badarayana-muni uses for the Brahma-sutras ( some call the Vedanta sutras). Yet not having a good translation also leaves one at a dis-advantage. I have been blessed to have spent time with one who lives this fullness many talk about. Without this foundation, at least for me, I would be scratching my head on many concepts. For this I am blessed.

There is no doubt in my mind as to the Fullness, the total inclusiveness of Brahman. I see it expressed daily. We talk of Tad Ekam (That One) to get an appreciation for this fullness, this ubiquity. For this, reading and discussing the Upanishads are a boon. As too the Gita, and the 5th Veda, the Mahabharata. Yet the formula, for me, has been to combine this with kriya yoga to the best of my ability that I can perform it as a house holder. My teacher always said, its knowledge and experience, one without the other is not a complete.

pranams,

Namaste yajvan - nice to see a good discussion going. I generally do not like to stray into discussing from an absolute standpoint because there is very little to discuss in this realm on theoretical issues. Brahman is silence - what more to add?

The question by suresh assumes importance. We have the veda describing Brahman as both nirguna and saguna. How to reconcile both? For that we first need to know the meaning of nirguna. It literally means devoid of guna. What is a guna? Guna typically has two meanings, one broad meaning roughly equated to quality and a more specific meaning related to vedAnta, one of the three components of prakriti, namely sattva, rajas and tamas. So what does nirguna mean when referenced in the sruti - whether it is used in the broader sense or the more specific philosophical sense? The ambiguity is resolved by using the term viSeSa which can denote only the former meaning, ie "devoid of qualities". But all through sruti, the term viSeSa is never used and hence the ambiguity remains. If we apply the two meanings we have two ways to reconcile the conflict in saguna and nirguna.

1. guna = quality:

In this case, nirguna will mean Brahman devoid of all qualities. And saguna will denote Brahman understood from the perspective of the universe, namely Brahman's role as Isvara.

2. guna = triguna

In this case, nirguna will mean devoid of undesirable qualities associated with prakriti such as death, decay. Saguna indicates the presence of Lordly qualities in God.

Since Brahman is not describable no one can settle this issue by arguments but solely by experience. We do not know of a single entity that has no qualities so Brahman has no framework for comparison. Everything we have come across in life and logic is either quantitative and/or qualitative. So the question has to be left open ended.

atanu
06 August 2007, 03:31 AM
------
To cite an example:

In the jnAna perspective, there is no one in bondage, no one in liberation, no one doing any sAdhana. Would this be a focal point to discuss anything practical?

In the avidya perspective, we see that plurality exists, misery exists, there is bondage, karma and rebirth - and almost every action we do is from this point of view. Avidya brings us to the need to seek release from bondage, perform our duties...a reality you cannot ignore no matter what u believe in.

Namaste,

The Jnana perspective includes both the hold of Avidya and the ultimate (and real) lack of Maya/Karma. And thus prescribes all that it prescribes.

Om

sarabhanga
06 August 2007, 05:50 AM
Namaste Nuno, Madhavan, et al.

Yes, the “Hari-Hara” conception is also applicable to Shiva-Shakti, where Shiva is Hara and his Shakti is Hari. And a similar notion is also useful in reconciling the ideal (or spiritual) Sattva with the manifest (or material) Tamas guna.

The mind is relatively sattvika, but all organs represent an admixture of gunas. Only pure Sattva is entirely imperishable.

Ishvara (who is worshipped) is equivalent with Saguna Brahma.

Nirguna Brahma cannot be worshipped ~ only “experienced” in Samadhi.

All gunas are inherent in Saguna Brahma, while Nirguna Brahma is truly beyond any qualification. Pure Sattva (without reference to Rajas or Tamas) or pure Akasha (untainted by the existence of other elements) would be equivalent with Nirguna Brahma.

If the idea of “aprakritic nityagunas” is that Nirguna Brahma has unqualified qualities, then yes, Nirguna Brahma is an infinite reservoir of undefined qualities. And Saguna Brahma is the source of all qualified or definite qualities.

As I mentioned before, Nirguna Brahma only says “I am”, and as soon as any particular quality springs to mind (to fill in the blank space that is naturally evoked) then Nirguna Brahma slips away and we are dealing with Saguna Brahma again.

And Avidya and Maya are virtually identical concepts that really only apply in the realm of Saguna Brahma. Maya (with both Vidya and Avidya) arises simultaneously with Saguna Brahma.

The aspiring Jnani peels away Maya to reveal Brahma, and when Maya (and the Avidya of guna) is entirely removed there is only ONE Brahma (the terms Nirguna and Saguna now irrelevant and discarded as the last remnant of Avidya).

Brahma is eternal, but Saguna Brahma is NOT eternal, since the gunas are created and will ultimately dissolve back into the “pure Sattva” (for want of terminology) of the eternal (Nirguna) Brahma.




Saguna Brahman must be treated as the most enlightened being in existence and hence the ultimate guru of all. His qualities have to be revered until one reaches that state.
Agreed!


Advaita Vedanta does not admit vishesha (eternal difference) which is a characteristic notion of the Vaisheshikas (and other dualistic schools).

visheSa means “distinction, characteristic difference, peculiar mark, special property, type, species, peculiar merit, excellence, superiority, particularity, essential difference or individual essence”.

How can the term visheSa be used to indicate “devoid of qualities”?

atanu
06 August 2007, 08:30 AM
I agree to all that Sri Sarabhanga has noted, since this is supported by shruti. Shri Krishna also says that "I appear using my Maya". Sarabhanga ji has noted that Maya only leads to Avidya and without overcoming the Maya, liberation is nought. Mere theoretical removal of Avidya is not sufficient.


The question should not be whether "Brahman has no guna?" The question should be "Whether Brahman is some Guna or a conglomerate of Gunas or whether it exists as 'Brahman' when gunas are nought?". Yes, Brahman exists always as Brahman.

Brahman is complete with or without gunas, unchangeable and homogeneous. Shruti says that one who sees any difference here is doomed. So, as qualified Brahman (Iswara) has to have difference from non-Isa, the definition of Brahman is nullified.

Simple thing is that Brahman is only known as that substratum on which all Gunas are sustained. Gunas exist on account of Brahman, who exists independent of any other thing. Air may get fragrant, associated with a fragrance, still air exists as air, whether fragrant or not. Similarly, if anger issues from me, I do not become anger. I remain what I am.

This seems rhetorical yet it is important and required for being stabilised in the knowledge that atma is uncorruptible. Which is the truth.

Om

Madhavan
06 August 2007, 01:26 PM
Namaste.



Brahma is eternal, but Saguna Brahma is NOT eternal, since the gunas are created and will ultimately dissolve back into the “pure Sattva” (for want of terminology) of the eternal (Nirguna) Brahma.


How do you account for verses such as these

tad viShNoH paramaM padaM sadA pashyanti suurayaH .
diviiva chaxurAtatam.h ..
tad viprAso vipanyavo jAgruvAM saHsamindhate .
viShNor yat paramaM padaM ..

in the vishnu suktam.

Obviously this refers to the Saguna Brahman due to refernces such as pashyanti. The word sadA means ever, so does it not mean seers always percieve the Saguna Brahman? The seer might dissolve into the nirguna brahman at some point, but does Saguna Brahman also cease to exist? Who maintains the unliberated souls in the avyakta from where they are regenerated during the next cycle of creation? The world of Saguna Brahman is eternal because his realm is often known as 'paramam padam'. If the above be interpreted as the nirguna brahman, then the terms pashyanti and surayah( the enlightened) make no sense. If it be Saguna Brahman, then the sadA will indicate that it is eternal.



Advaita Vedanta does not admit vishesha (eternal difference) which is a characteristic notion of the Vaisheshikas (and other dualistic schools).

visheSa means “distinction, characteristic difference, peculiar mark, special property, type, species, peculiar merit, excellence, superiority, particularity, essential difference or individual essence”.

How can the term visheSa be used to indicate “devoid of qualities”?

In Advaita literature nirguna is always equated with nirvisheSa ( not as devoid of triguna) , which means Brahman has no distinguishing characteristics. ( devoid of all qualities)

Madhavan
06 August 2007, 01:43 PM
I agree to all that Sri Sarabhanga has noted, since this is supported by shruti. Shri Krishna also says that "I appear using my Maya". Sarabhanga ji has noted that Maya only leads to Avidya and without overcoming the Maya, liberation is nought. Mere theoretical removal of Avidya is not sufficient.


You seem to ignore the fact that Advaita admits two kinds of liberation: - para (sadyo) and apara(krama) mukti. In the former, experience of the Nirguna Brahman removes both avidya and maya, and leads to instantaneous release. In the latter avidya is removed, but not mAyA ( which means Isvara is still seen as an entity apart from you and you are freed from the pacha kosha) which confers a place in the realm of the Sabda Brahman. If you would like to know about this, please read Brahmasutra Bhaashya of Sri Shankaracharya. Practice of Karma Yoga leads to karma bhanga ( and knowledge of Saguna Brahman) and apara mukti. Practice of Jnana Yoga leads to jnAna which is para mukti. In aparamukti the liberated soul still has an aprakritic body made of sattva guna( like Isvara) and enjoys the glories of Saguna Brahman and his creative sport. At a later time, this partially liberated soul is completely freed of mAyA and merges with the Absolute. There is no return to samsAra from the world of Saguna Brahman so your statement mAyA leads to avidya is incorrect. The main difference between the two kinds of liberation is that in sadyo mukti complete identity with Brahman is attained. In krama mukti, there is cessation of the wheel of life and death, and the liberated soul is united with Isvara where it continues to exist for a while before geting completely liberated. Even in partial liberation of this kind, there is absolute bliss and experience of Isvara.

Nuno Matos
06 August 2007, 10:49 PM
Namaste Madhavan


This is a quote from a famous advaita Saint

" Both Avidyamaya and Vidyamaya are derived from the primal illusion, or Moolamaya, which is Consciousness itself. Our true Self, is prior to, and beyond, even this Consciousness. We are Brahman. "

Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj - From a talk dated January 26, 1933

I hope it will bring some light to you!

atanu
06 August 2007, 10:54 PM
-----. At a later time, this partially liberated soul is completely freed of mAyA and merges with the Absolute. -----


Dear Madhavan,

What I have said till now does in no way contradict to Apara Mukti stage, as you have yourself written above.


Regarding Param Padam:

As long as a sage is there, sada is true. When sage is no more -- what is sada? And what is param Padam?

Regards


Om

Nuno Matos
06 August 2007, 11:01 PM
Namaste Atanu and Madhavan

and he goes on, " The mortal (Jiva) is hounded by illusion (Maya), due to doubt (Vikalpa). It is Illusion which actually deludes him. An ordinary human being is ignorant of his true nature and continues to exist as a mortal, completely oblivious to the fact that he is immortal (Shiva)."

Madhavan
06 August 2007, 11:18 PM
As long as a sage is there, sada is true. When sage is no more -- what is sada? And what is param Padam?


I think we have gone a little wayward to discuss a rather trivial issue - is Saguna Brahman eternal or not? Yes, he is eternal because Saguna Brahman is always with respect to an observer, and does not exist apart from an observer, and with infinite jIvas around there will always be an observer. The point is the creative dance of Brahman will never come to an end, though different jivas continue to be part of this dance forever. Nirguna Brahman need not be called eternal as you have pointed out where the concept of time itself is not valid and so eternity itself looses significance.

Madhavan
07 August 2007, 12:02 AM
Namaste Madhavan


This is a quote from a famous advaita Saint

" Both Avidyamaya and Vidyamaya are derived from the primal illusion, or Moolamaya, which is Consciousness itself. Our true Self, is prior to, and beyond, even this Consciousness. We are Brahman. "

Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj - From a talk dated January 26, 1933

I hope it will bring some light to you!


Agreed!

Now begin to explain both Avidyamaya and vidyamaya ( this is what I have partly done here) and we have a discussion. Just stating "we are brahman" and nothing else allowed puts an abrupt end to a discussion. ;)

Madhavan
07 August 2007, 01:10 AM
Dear Atanau,

Dear Madhavan,

What I have said till now does in no way contradict to Apara Mukti stage, as you have yourself written above.


You have not contradicted except for your quote where you say that "liberation is nought"

"Sarabhanga ji has noted that Maya only leads to Avidya and without overcoming the Maya, liberation is nought. Mere theoretical removal of Avidya is not sufficient. "

Liberation is certainly not a hit or miss thing to be classified as 0 or 1. Atleast two kinds of liberation are known in the vedanta. The Krama mukti is freedom from opposites, pleasure and pain. The para mukti is freedom from all dualty. Even in Krama mukti there is certainly knowledge of the Atma in the form of Ishvara. (perhaps we could call that incomplete knowledge of the Atma) It is also well acepted that Ishvara sayujya confers Ishavara tulya Ananda so that means this is not an ordinary state of enjoyment.(not like heaven or svarga) It can hardly be classified under the head "liberation=nought". People should choose that path that suits them and it is well known that sadyo mukti is very rarely attained by humans because of the intense nature of the sAdana required like the likes of Sage Vishvamitra. In Adi Shankara's system the path of jnAna is to be adopted by very committed sanyAsins and the path of arciradi is to be adopted by grihastas. The former is well and good if you can match up to the demands. The latter is also wonderful if you can pass the samsAra and cross over to the shores of Ishvara. Sadyo mukti is primarily a theoretical concept and like one in several billion men land on the moon so does a man attain complete knowledge of the Atma. Most people talking about it are simply talking from books not from experience. Even exalted dieites and devatas have been trying to attain the Atma jnAna for countless years the thrall of dualty is phenomenal indeed. A person no less than Arjuna who performed many years of penance to please Mahadeva and to whom he revealed his universal form was classified as ineligible for jnana yoga by Lord Krishna although he is still given theoretical instruction in jnAna yoga without going into the absolute truth such as ajAti vAda. My point is to show that we cannot over simplify things with the jnAna perspective. The vyavaharika perspective reigns supreme until complete Atma saxAtkAra is obtained.

sarabhanga
07 August 2007, 03:12 AM
अतो देवा अवन्तु नो यतो विष्णुर्विचक्रमे ।
पृथिव्याः सप्त धामभिः ॥ १६ ॥
इदं विष्णुर्वि चक्रमे त्रेधा नि दधे पदम् ।
समूढमस्य पांसुरे ॥ १७ ॥
त्रीणि पदा वि चक्रमे विष्णुर्गोपा अदाभ्यः ।
अतो धर्माणि धारयन् ॥ १८ ॥
विष्णोः कर्माणि पश्यत यतो व्रतानि पस्पशे ।
इन्द्रस्य युज्यः सखा ॥ १९ ॥
तद्विष्णोः परमम्पदं सदा पश्यन्ति सूरयः ।
दिवीव चक्षुराततम् ॥ २० ॥
तद्विप्रासो विपन्यवो जागृवांसः समिन्धते ।
विष्णोर्यत्परमम्पदम् ॥ २१ ॥

ato devA avantu no yato viSNurvicakrame |
pRthivyAH sapta dhAmabhiH || RV 1 22 16 ||

idaM viSNurvi cakrame tredhA ni dadhe padam |
samUDhamasya pAMsure || 17 ||

trINi padA vi cakrame viSNurgopA adAbhyaH |
ato dharmANi dhArayan || 18 ||

viSNoH karmANi pashyata yato vratAni paspashe |
indrasya yujyaH sakhA || 19 ||

tadviSNoH paramampadaM sadA pashyanti sUrayaH |
divIva cakSurAtatam || 20 ||

tadviprAso vipanyavo jAgRvAMsaH samindhate |
viSNoryatparamampadam || 21 ||


16. The Gods be gracious unto us even from the place whence Viṣṇu strode
Through the seven regions of the earth!

17. Through all this world strode Viṣṇu; thrice his foot he planted, and the whole
Was gathered in his footstep’s dust.

18. Viṣṇu, the Guardian, he whom none may injure, made three steps; thenceforth
Establishing his high decrees.

19. Behold Viṣṇu’s deeds, whereby the worthy friend of Indra
Hath let his holy ways be seen.

20. That highest place of the All-pervading, the wise ones ever perceive;
As roams the Eye in the Sky (with unobstructed gaze).


20. The wise evermore behold that loftiest place where Viṣṇu is,
Laid as it were an eye in heaven.

20. The wise ever contemplate that supreme station of Viṣṇu,
As the eye ranges over the sky.

21. This, the supreme station of Viṣṇu, the wise, ever vigilant,
Diligent in praise, amply glorify.


Such praise is always directed to Saguna Brahma!

The “wise ones” are not eternal (they were born), but while incarnate they always contemplate and praise the “supreme station of Viṣṇu”.

If Saguna Brahma is eternal, then either Nirguna Brahma does not exist or there are two eternally different Brahmas!

Before the first creation, there could have been no “unliberated souls” ~ unless you are positing another band of eternal rivals to Brahma!!

And, so long as Vishesha is taken in its general sense of “distinction, characteristic difference, peculiar mark, special property, particularity, or essential difference”, and assuming that there is no confusion with the characteristic meaning intended by the Vaisheshika school (which presumes eternity of distinction), then Vishesha is equivalent with Guna ~ and so too, Nirvishesha is no different to Nirguna.

In the state of Advaita there is ONLY Mukti. But in describing the state of Samsara, and the way out of it, Advaita philosophy does mention Sadyomukti and Kramamukti.

Avidya is removed only in Samadhi, but for so long as the Jiva remains attached to a mortal body, Maya (and thus Avidya) yet remains ~ and this is Kramamukti (the first stage of Mukti).

When this state is maintained until the mortal frame is finally discarded (in Mahasamadhi) and both Avidya and Maya are entirely removed, then this is Sadyomukti.




Is Saguna Brahman eternal or not? Yes, he is eternal because Saguna Brahman is always with respect to an observer, and does not exist apart from an observer, and with infinite jIvas around there will always be an observer.

Even the Gods are not eternal, they were created! So how can all individual Jivas be considered as eternal?


Then was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.

What covered in, and where? And what gave shelter? Was water there, of unfathomed depth?

Death was not then, nor was there immortality: no sign was there, the divider of day and night.

That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness, this All was indiscriminated chaos.

All that existed then was void and formless: by the great power of Warmth was born that Singularity.

Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire the primal seed and germ of Spirit.

Sages, who searched with their hearts, discovered the existent’s kinship in the non-existent.

Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?

There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder.

Who verily knows and who can declare it, when was it born and whence comes this creation?

The gods are later than this world’s production. Who knows then when it first came into being?

He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,

Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows it not.

And Prajapati divided His own Paramatma in order to create the manifest diversity of Jivatmanah ~ and if one Paramatma and many Jivatmanah have always existed, then Prajapati had no reason for His original Self-Sacrifice!!

P.S. I have never intended to imply that Kramamukti is “nought”. Kramamukti is a vital staging-post for Sadyomukti (and it is the best that can be attained without becoming permanently discarnate), but it is not “absolute” Mukti.

Madhavan
07 August 2007, 05:02 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga - well said.

But you have said this.



Such praise is always directed to Saguna Brahma!


Yet there is nothing that prevents us from praising the ekapAd rudra the unborn and the cause of all.



The “wise ones” are not eternal (they were born), but while incarnate they always contemplate and praise the “supreme station of Viṣṇu”.


But isnt Vishnu unborn? If so, so is his supreme station.



If Saguna Brahma is eternal, then either Nirguna Brahma does not exist or there are two eternally different Brahmas!


Why so? Saguna Brahma can be consided as nirguna brahma wearing a special costume, there is never a time when the costume will be discarded because creation is not one time, but cyclical eternally. How does that call for two Brahmans?




Before the first creation, there could have been no “unliberated souls” ~ unless you are positing another band of eternal rivals to Brahma!!


There was no first creation - infinite cycles of creation have gone by and wil go on.



In the state of Advaita there is ONLY Mukti. But in describing the state of Samsara, and the way out of it, Advaita philosophy does mention Sadyomukti and Kramamukti.

Avidya is removed only in Samadhi, but for so long as the Jiva remains attached to a mortal body, Maya (and thus Avidya) yet remains ~ and this is Kramamukti (the first stage of Mukti).

When this state is maintained until the mortal frame is finally discarded (in Mahasamadhi) and both Avidya and Maya are entirely removed, then this is Sadyomukti.


Absolutely. Even Krama mukti is certainly a samAdhi but not the deepest one.




Even the Gods are not eternal, they were created! So how can all individual Jivas be considered as eternal?



Gods are created since they proceed from Saguna brahma but jivas are not.

As far as I am aware, Jivas have no beginning such as Brahman creating a new Jiva. Brahman has always existed in association with mAyA and that is why jiva has also existed eternally as part of the eternal mAyA. Some of the jivas attain samAdhi during a creation cycle while those unliberated jivas remain suspended in the avyakta in a seed form until they are awakened again in the next cycle. The process is eternal.

To consider the point. Let us take my own soul called Madhavan which is currently fully covered in beginningless avidya. It will be another few billion years from now when there will be mahApraLaya and the manifest universe will undergo dissolution. Either I will obtain mahAsamAdhi within this period in such a case there is no association with the universe from that point on - the Jiva disappears. If this jiva should attain the realm of Isvara, it will merge with the Nirguna Brahman at the time of praLaya. what happens if neither of these happen. The jiva looses consciousness duing praLaya and remains in the avyakta. Avyakta resides inside the Saguna Brahman during the kalpAnta praLaya and in the vyavahArika daSa Saguna Brahman is eternal( otherwise there is no one to revive the avyakta and associating avyakta with Nirguna Brahman is a logical impossibility since avyakta is prakritic). During the next creation, the same jiva with karma retained from older cycles is born - although this is an apparent creation, the jiva is still the same spark of avidya which is now called Madhavan. So Jiva is never really fresh born since creation cycles are eternal. So this jiva called Madhavan has always existed in mAyA and if it does not work for liberation it will be permenently covered in avidya for ever. Karma is beginningless for every jiva and that alone accounts for the observed differences in life without making Brahman partial to some jivas ( see Brahmasutra 2.1.35 Vaisamyanairghrinyadhikaranam)

sarabhanga
07 August 2007, 07:24 AM
Namaste Madhavan,

The twin of Kala and Akala may be interpreted in various (complementary) ways.

kAla means “black, or of a dark colour”; and it indicates “the black part of the eye”, or the Kalasarpa (“black snake”), or the letter m.

And kAla (from kal ~ “to calculate or enumerate”) is “a fixed or right point of time, a space or measure of time, or time (in general)”; and it indicates a particular “occasion, circumstance, hour, or season”.

And so kAla points to “a section or part”.

kAla is “the end, death by age, or time (as leading to events, the causes of which are imperceptible to the mind of man)”; “destiny, fate, or time (as destroying all things)”; “death or time of death (often personified and represented with the attributes of Yama, the regent of the dead, or even identified with him)”.

akAla indicates “a wrong or bad time”, and its common meaning is “unseasonable”.

“Twofold are the forms of Brahman, Kala and Akala; one should worship Kala as Brahman” ~ Maitrayani Samhita.

Brahman should be worshipped at and as the right time, and not the wrong time.

Kala Brahman is timely or in time, whereas Akala Brahman is un-timely or beyond time.

Brahman should be worshipped as one undivided (i.e. eternal) moment.

Kala Brahman (i.e. Brahman with parts, or Saguna Brahman) should be worshipped.

Akala Brahman (i.e. Brahman without parts, or Nirguna Brahman) can not be worshipped in the normal sense ~ for without any division at all (including that of the worshipper and the worshipped) all such actions or relations are impossible.

Kala is the Dark One (i.e. Krishna), and Akala is the Light One (i.e. Arjuna) ~ and one should always worship Krishna in preference to Arjuna.

Kala is the Black Naga (i.e. Krishna), and Akala is the White Naga (i.e. Balarama) ~ and one should worship Krishna in preference to Balarama.

And God is most directly seen in Kala (as the uniform pupil of the eye); whereas Akala (as the variegated iris, and all that surrounds it ~ i.e. the whole view) is not proper for worship.

If the “Idol” is taken as a whole, with all its particularities, then that bright image is only a guide for meditation on that which is unimaginable without any distinguishing marks. And that view of the Murti is Akala (which should not be worshipped).

If the true “Idol” is taken to be only that undivided dark point of the “Pupil of the Eye”, then that dark ocean is Kala, which is the aim of all Hindu Murti Puja.

Saguna Brahma is the immediate cause of Trimurti, and the highest abstraction of Narayana may be equated with Saguna Brahma.

Nirguna Brahma is the highest philosophical abstraction or ultimate Truth; however, according to the “Uttama Satya” (ultimate Truth) of Shri Gaudapada’s Ajativada (doctrine of Non-origination), Nirguna Brahma cannot actually be the cause of anything.

Guna means “a single thread or strand of a cord or twine”, “string or thread”, “rope”, “a garland”, “a bow-string”, “the string of a musical instrument” , “a multiplier”, “a subdivision, species, or kind”, “a secondary element”, “a subordinate or unessential part of any action”, “an auxiliary act”, “a side-dish”, “the secondary or less immediate object of an action”, “a quality, peculiarity, attribute, or property”, “an ingredient or constituent of Prakriti”, “the number three”, “an epithet”, “good quality”, “virtue”, “merit”, “excellence”, “an organ of sense”.

All Gunas may be reduced to the three essential categories of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas (which indicate much more than the trivial classes of “goodness”, “passion”, and “ignorance”), but there is another more comprehensive list of 24 principal Gunas, including: Rupa ~ shape and colour; Rasa ~ savour; Gandha ~ odour; Sparsha ~ tangibility; Samkhya ~ number; Parimana ~ dimension; Prithaktva ~ severalty; Samyoga ~ conjunction; Vibhaga ~ disjunction; Paratva ~ remoteness; Aparatva ~ proximity; Gurutva ~ weight; Dravatva ~ fluidity; Sneha ~ viscidity; Shabda ~ sound; Buddhi or Jnana ~ understanding or knowledge; Sukha ~ pleasure; Duhkha ~ pain; Iccha ~ desire; Dvesha ~ aversion; Prayatna ~ effort; Dharma ~ merit or virtue; Adharma ~ demerit; and Amskara ~ the self-reproductive quality.

And Nirguna Brahman is beyond all of this.

Saguna means “together with a string or cord”, “furnished with particular attributes or properties”, “having qualities”, or “qualified”; and Nirguna means “having no cord or string”, “devoid of all qualities or properties”, or “having no epithet”.

“Twofold are the forms of Brahman, Kala (with parts) and Akala (without parts); one should worship Kala as Brahman.”

Kala is Saguna Brahma, who should be worshipped; and Akala is Nirguna Brahma, who is beyond any normal means of worship and only realized in Samadhi.

The Ultimate Truth, according to Shri Shankaracarya, is One Changeless Differenceless Actionless Uncharacterizable Impersonal Spirit, or Nirguna Brahma.

When qualified by the inexplicable Maya, this Brahman appears as One Personal God or Ishvara endowed with infinite power and wisdom and capable of self-manifestation in infinite ways and forms in space and time, or Saguna Brahma (the Mayika appearance of Nirguna Brahma).

Saguna Brahma may be worshipped in diverse holy names and forms, although Moksha consists in transcending Saguna Brahma and realizing the absolute non-dual reality of Nirguna Brahma.

The Nirgunabrahmatattva of Shankara is very close to the Shunyatattva of the Buddhists. Existence (Satta) for the Buddha is a phenomenal existence with practical efficiency, and Shunya is non-existence or Absolute Void.

For Shankara, however, Existence is an eternal infinite noumenal existence (the non-existence of which, at any time, is inconceivable); and Nirguna Brahma, the Eternal Infinite Background of all spatio-temporal existences, is Absolute Existence.

Ishvara Narayana is Saguna Brahma; and Nirguna Brahma is Sadashiva.

Nirguna Brahma is Rudra-Shiva, the unnamed Ganapati; and Saguna Brahma is the Host of Rudras or Ganas (cf. Gunas).

Shankara names the Turiya (Akala Brahman) and also the Ishvara (i.e. Prajna or Kala Brahman).

When Prajna merges in Turiya, this is Yoga, par excellence!

When Kala and Akala are amalgamated so that no trace of division remains, then all opposition is defeated!

The image of Shiva Nataraja is Aja Ekapad Rudra personified.

Aja Ekapad is the Agni Vahana ~ the “sacrificial goat” that is divided for the sake of Creation ~ the dark vehicle of Fire, and that which bears the Light.

Aja Ekapad is the veritable Space-Time continuum ~ four dimensions in one ~ itself beyond all dimension, but without which no mensuration is possible!

Akala Brahman (Paramataman) is Aja; and if Kala Brahman (i.e. Brahman with parts ~ including all individual Jivatmanah, all characteristics and qualities, and all divisions of space and time, and all dualistic relations such as subject and object, and even the distinction of Dharma and Adharma) is also Aja, then there was no need for Creation.

Even if the unborn eternity of Kala Brahman only admits the eternal division of many Jivatmanah, then Prajapati’s Atma-Yajna would remain superfluous.

If Jivatman and Karma (which is absolutely dependent on Time and Duality) are both unborn and eternal, then the whole notion of Akala or Nirguna Brahman is compromised, and the Brahman can never be (or have been) without Action or Karma.

If Karma is eternal, then Duality is eternal, and Maya (or Shakti) is eternal; and so Advaita is impossible, Sadashiva cannot exist, Prajapati’s Atma-Yajna was pointless, perfect Yoga and total Pralaya are impossible, and peace can NEVER be fully attained (even by the Brahman).

In Sanatana Dharma, the primary consideration is Eternity, and all that is truly unborn and eternal is a veritable Deity. And so, unless it can be admitted that Brahman has created the diversified Atman from himself, it must be understood that the “One God” of supposedly monistic Hinduism actually has many equally ultimate Gods (i.e. every Jiva must be an individual equally indestructible God, and all Action must equally be deified).

If Jivatman and Karma are coeternal with Paramatman, then there has never been a moment of true peace, even in Heaven.

From its fundamental derivation, the term Narayana means "Son of Man"; and if Karma (action) is eternal, then it is misleading to suggest that Narayana is the one "in whom all things rest" !

The Turiya Atman is Advaita ~ i.e. Brahman is Advaita.

Advaita is Oneness (Unity, or the Universe); and Dvaita is Twoness (Duality, or the Diverse).

From a monistic perspective (and standard mathematical logic) the original Aja Ekapad Advaita Akala Brahman (Turiya or Shiva) must become divided or “cut” in some way for any kind of diversity or multiplicity to exist!

Akala becomes Kala, Nirguna becomes Saguna, Advaita becomes Dvaita, and Nara becomes Narayana, only through “cutting”.

Duality is only eternal from the perspective of Dvaita-vada and Samkhya (the inspiration behind most dualistic thought in Sanatana Dharma).

Nirguna Brahman is Akala or Mahakala, and only this supreme Brahman is Aja and Ekapad ~ the Uttama Satya of Gaudapada

In Advaita, duality is perceived only through Avidya ~ with the only Vidya recognized by Advaita being true knowledge of non-duality (i.e. unity).

Advaita is the Aja Uttama Satya, whose only criterion for absolute truth is unborn eternity. From this perspective, which is perfect knowledge of the Turiya Atman (the Akala Brahman), NOTHING which is created (or born) can be considered as unborn and eternally true.

In Advaita, Maya exists only and always as the inborn “Avidya” of Saguna Brahman ~ and this creative Avidya is the very reason why the once lauded Brahma (i.e. Saguna Brahman, who should by all rights be worshipped as the true Creator) has been “cursed” by an almost total ban on the official worship of His image.

Kala Brahman is Saguna ~ the Anuttara Satya of Pravritti and Bhakti.
Akala Brahman is Nirguna ~ the Uttama Satya of Nivritti and Jnana.

Advaita Vedanta takes the ultimate perspective of Akala Brahman (the Caturtha or “Turya”).

Kala Brahman is 1 (and thus also 2 & 3); while Akala Brahman is 4 alone.

(3) = (A) = Vaishvanara = Tamas = Vishnu-Maya
(2) = (U) = Taijasa = Rajas = Shiva-Shakti
(1) = (M) = Prajna = Sattva = Brahmā-Brāhmī
(4) = (AUM) = Turiya = Nirguna = Brahma

Shankaracarya praised Narayana and Shri, without distinction, as the Kala Brahman (the perfect essence of Maya and the only object proper for worship); but Shri Shankara knew very well that the Advaita Akala Brahman (Mahakala Sadashiva Ajaikapada Rudra) is the one and only true God, who cannot be worshipped as such, being only known in Advaita by the Nivritti-marga and Jnana-yoga, and the direct experience of that one perfect Atman as the undivided essence of eternal Being.

The Akala Nirguna Brahman ~ commonly known as Turiya and described as being Aja (unborn) and Advaita (undivided) and always Shiva (the one perfect embodiment of auspiciousness and grace) ~ CANNOT be truly named!

“Mahakala”, “Sadashiva”, “Turiya”, “Aja Ekapad”, or “Rudra”, ANY name can only be euphemistically applied to that which is entirely Nirguna and Akala and Aja and Advaita!

In pralaya there is no division ~ just as in (maha) akala there is no kala ~ and there is no possibility of time or space in any measurable dualistic sense.




Rig Vedic sages do not pray directly to Aja Ekapad. It's a nice mystery.

Aja Ekapad Rudra is NOT worshipped.

Vishnu (Narayana ~ “the son of Man”) was born, and is born again and again in his various Avataras.

Please read the previously posted passage from Rigveda, which describes the process of Creation.

And you have completely ignored this important point: Prajapati divided His own Paramatma in order to create the manifest diversity of Jivatmanah ~ and if one Paramatma and many Jivatmanah have always existed, then Prajapati had no reason for His original Self-Sacrifice !!!


Gunas are eternal, Jivas are eternal, Karma is eternal, Vishnu and Brahma and Shakti are all eternal, Creation was unnecessary because its diversity is unborn and eternal, and Advaita does not exist ~ as far as you are aware, there is always Maya.

Madhavan
07 August 2007, 07:27 AM
Pictorally it will be like this:

Evolution:
Saguna Brahman ---> Avyakta -->Mahat(Brahma the world soul)--->Jiva

Dissolution:

Saguna Brahman<----Avyakta <--Mahat <---unliberated Jiva
(Only Saguna Brahman exists during praLaya and being the karmAdyaxa holds the kArmic seeds of all unliberated jivas)
Nirguna Brahman <---Saguna Brahman <---{Jiva with krama mukti}

Independent of Dissolution:
Nirguna Brahman <---{sadyo mukti}Jiva

Mahat the world soul has a life span of 100 years in his time scale. Other tattvAbhimAni devas have lesser life spans after which they return to Nirguna Brahman. Saguna Brahman exists forever in the phenomenal reality and the process of evolution and dissolution go on for ever.

saidevo
07 August 2007, 08:57 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga.

Thank you for having clarfied many of my doubts with your excellent essay on Advaita whose hallmark is the clarity of presentation!



Kala Brahman is 1 (and thus also 2 & 3); while Akala Brahman is 4 alone.

(3) = (A) = Vaishvanara = Tamas = Vishnu-Maya
(2) = (U) = Taijasa = Rajas = Shiva-Shakti
(1) = (M) = Prajna = Sattva = Brahmā-Brāhmī
(4) = (AUM) = Turiya = Nirguna = Brahma


So in Sanatana Dharma, Nirguna Brahman is the ALL (4), not the shUnya (0) of the Buddhists. Is the concept of the all-inclusive ALL of the AUM you have mentioned, from Gargyayana's praNava vAda? How then is the zero, which was discovered by the Hindus, accounted for in the metaphysics of Sanatana Dharma?

As Dayayanada Saraswati of Arya Samaj would say, is not the AUM verily the God of the Vedas, the Nirguna Brahman and all manifestations are in and from this praNava mantra, the first mantra used both in puja and meditation, the most powerful single-letter in the universe, the point of the Big Bang theory that started off this expanding universe?

atanu
07 August 2007, 10:20 AM
Namaste Sarabhanga - well said.

-----
Why so? Saguna Brahma can be consided as nirguna brahma wearing a special costume, there is never a time when the costume will be discarded because creation is not one time, but cyclical eternally. How does that call for two Brahmans?

----

Namaste,

Sarabhanga ji has dealt with the whole matter, there is very little to say.

The view that Saguna Brahman is Nirguna Brahman with a special dress is from the perspective of ignorant Jiva, since shruti says that one who sees any difference here is doomed. As qualified Brahman (Iswara) has to have difference from non-Isa, the definition of Brahman is nullified.


Elsewhere you have said that Saguna Brahman is forever since some or other Jiva will remain ignorant to worship saguna Brahman. This again is from the perspective of avidya. For a Mukta, there is no second.


I hope I am clear.

Om Namah Shivaya

sarabhanga
08 August 2007, 02:18 AM
Kala Brahman is 1 (and thus also 2 & 3); while Akala Brahman is 4 alone.

(3) = (A) = Vaishvanara = Tamas = Vishnu-Maya
(2) = (U) = Taijasa = Rajas = Shiva-Shakti
(1) = (M) = Prajna = Sattva = Brahmā-Brāhmī
(4) = (AUM) = Turiya = Nirguna = Brahma

Namaste Saidevo,

I am always happy to dispel doubts. :)

I would start with the principle Upanishads before looking to the dictated recollections of otherwise unknown texts! ;)

This understanding comes directly from the Mandukyopanishad and Gaudapadakarika.

pAd refers primarily to the foot or footing, and thus foundational understanding.

And catuSpAd refers to four primary understandings, all of which are required to complete the instruction on the fourfold nature of auM.

The collective plural pAdAH indicates “the four parts” (i.e. all things required for completion of the whole).

omityetadaksharamidaM sarvaM tasyopavyAkhyAnaM bhUtaM bhavad-bhaviSyaditi sarvamo&#209;kAra eva |
yaccAnyat-trikAlAtItaM tadapyo&#209;kAra eva |1|

Om is the Word, and it is all this; and its explanation is this: All that is past, present, and future, is verily Om.
Also that which is beyond the triple conception of time is verily Om.

a is Vishva, u is Taijasa, and M is Prajna ~ and these are the three “foot-prints” of Narayana Vishnu.

auM taken as a perfect whole is the Ekapad (Rudra Shiva), and a + u + M is the Tripad (Vamana Vishnu).

And Ekapad plus Tripad equals Catushpad!

Three temporarily divided feet that are in essence only one eternally undivided foot ~ Aja Ekapad.

The three steps of Vishnu (Vishva, Taijasa, and Prajna) are the very form of Maya or Prakriti (Tamas, Rajas, and Sattva).
Shri Lakshmi is the Shakti (primary power or “weapon” of Vishnu) and Shri Devi is Maya.
Narayana Vishnu is fully expressed in the Trimurti, the Trikona, and the Three Qualities, Qualifications, Distinctions, or Conditions (i.e. the Three Gunas).

The Upanishad reveals that three of these understandings are associated with division, while the fourth stands undivided and alone.

sarvaM hyetad brahmAyamAtmA brahma so.ayamAtmA catuSpAd |2|

All this is verily Brahman; this Atman is Brahman; this Atman is quadruped (i.e. having four steps or understandings).

Regarding the cipher or zero:
Everyone knows the idea of “nothing” or “empty”, but the importance in mathematics is the use of this apparent nothing as a kind of pregnant place-holder, which stands as an empty zero but simultaneously implies a fullness that raises subsequent integers to a higher degree of meaning.

If we counted in base four, the initial sequence would be 1, 2, 3, and then 10 ~ and perhaps this would be a more appropriate way to enumerate the pAdAH of praNava. :)

Base-four numerical systems are found scattered all over the world, and until fairly recently the units of currency in India were reckoned according to a fundamentally base-four pattern.

4 kauri = 1 ganda
20 ganda = 1 pan
4 pan = 1 ana
4 ana = 1 kahan
4 kahan = 1 rupee