Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 34

Thread: The "Nirguna" Brahman: Full of Attributes and Unlikely to Change for Our Sake!

  1. #1

    The "Nirguna" Brahman: Full of Attributes and Unlikely to Change for Our Sake!

    Namaste,

    There has been quite a bit of discussion lately about the nature of Brahman. Does it have attributes and form in a real sense? Or is it without attributes of any kind? Is He a being endowed with the ability to think, feel, and act (as we are), or is it just an impersonal thing that defies all description? Some of this discussion becomes heated, often by those attached to their monistic view and responding to any scrutiny with "oh, this is becoming an I'm right and you're wrong discussion!" or "You are being argumentative!" But it is more complicated than that. The shrutis are right, and those who disagree with them are wrong, and this has always been the traditional Hindu view. So, what do the shrutis have to say on the subject of Brahman? Here, I will go over a brief survey of mainstream pramANas whose authority is accepted by all major schools of vedAnta. I will focus primarily on shruti, and will not even quote from questionable sources. Let us put aside preconceived, sectarian notions of what brahman must be, and consult the shrutis.

    First, a word about logic. The idea of an entity without attributes is a paradox. We know of no entity in nature that exists and yet has no attributes. An entity without attributes cannot be the subject of speech, writing, or any other form of expression. As one member noted somewhat tongue-in-cheek, isn't being without attributes, itself an attribute? Perhaps, but when we speak of something being "all-pervading," "of the nature of bliss," "the supreme light," etc, these are attributes. One cannot envy the task of the Advaitin, who must prove the existence of something that fundamentally defies the basic law of existence!

    Fortunately, the shrutis are not so constrained. On the contrary, the saMhitA-s are full of hymns glorifying God's deeds, activities, and majesty:

    viṣṇornu kaṃ vīryāṇi pra vocaṃ yaḥ pārthivāni vimamerajāṃsi |
    yo askabhāyaduttaraṃ sadhasthaṃ vicakramāṇastredhorughāyaḥ ||

    I WILL declare the mighty deeds of Viṣṇu, of him who measured out the earthly regions, Who propped the highest place of congregation, thrice setting down his footstep, widely striding. (Rg veda 1.154.1)


    ayaṃ sahasraṃ ṛṣibhiḥ sahaskṛtaḥ samudra iva paprathe |
    satyaḥ so asya mahimā ghṛṇe śavo yajñeṣu viprarājye ||

    He, with his might enhanced by Ṛṣis thousandfold, hath like an ocean spread himself. His majesty is praised as true at solemn rites, his power where holy singers rule. (Rg veda 8.3.4)


    The taittirIya AraNyaka containing the famous puruSha-sukta has the following:

    sahasrashIrShA puruShaH sahasrAkShassahasrapAt |
    sa bhUmiM vishvato vRtvA atyatiShTaddashANgulam|| TA 3.12.1 ||

    With countless number of heads, eyes, and feet, the puruSHa pervades the Earth and extends far beyond. (taittirIya AraNyaka 3.12.1)


    vedAhametaM puruShaM mahAntam AdityavarNaM tamasastu pAre |
    sarvANi rUpANi vichitya dhIraH nAmAni kRitvA'bhivadanyadAste || TA 3.12.7 ||

    I have realized the supreme puruSHa, brilliant as the solar hue
    and beyond the veil of darkness. All the forms are formulated,
    categorized and sustained by that wise and glorious being. (taittirIya AraNyaka 3.12.7)


    An objective individual, unbiased by sectarian expectations, can admit that a supreme person with countless heads, eyes, and feet, brilliant as the sun, is an entity with attributes, not a formless entity lacking them. Even the upaniShads speak of such a supreme person as a being with form and having countless limbs:

    With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes, heads and mouths everywhere, with ears everywhere, That exists, pervading everything in the universe. (shvetAshvatara upaniShad 3.16)

    The same upaniShad also describes Him as as the repository of all good qualities and the Lord of the gunas:

    sa vishvakR^id.h vishvavidaatmayoni\-
    rGYaH kaalakaalo guNii sarvavid.h yaH .
    pradhaanaxetraGYapatirguNeshaH
    sa.nsaaramoxasthitibandhahetuH .. 16..

    He is the creator of everything as well as the knower of everything. He is His own source, He is all-knowing, and He is the destroyer of time. He is the repository of all good qualities, and the master of all sciences. He is the controller of Matter and Spirit, and the lord of the Gunas. He is the cause of liberation from the cycle of birth and death, and of bondage which results in its continuance. (shvetAshvatara upaniShad 6.16)


    Now the bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad is more explicit on this point, for it explicitly names the world of matter as one of the forms of Brahman, and then describes more attributes of Brahman, the knowing of which leads to moksha:

    II-iii-1: Brahman has but two forms - gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, defined and undefined.

    II-iii-2: The gross (form) is that which is other than air and the ether. It is mortal, it is limited, and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the sun that shines, for it is the essence of the defined.

    II-iii-3: Now the subtle - it is air and the ether. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is the being that is in the sun, for that is the essence of the undefined. This is with reference to the gods.

    II-iii-4: Now with reference to the body: the gross form is but this - what is other than (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body. It is mortal, it is limited and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the eye, for it is the essence of the defined.

    II-iii-5: Now the subtle - it is (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is this being that is in the right eye, for this is the essence of the undefined.

    II-iii-6: The form of that 'being' is as follows: like a cloth dyed with turmeric, or like grey sheep's wool, or like the (scarlet) insect called Indragopa, or like a tongue of fire, or like a white lotus, or like a flash of lightning. He who knows it as such attains splendour like a flash of lightning. Now therefore the description (of Brahman): 'Not this, not this'. Because there is no other and more appropriate description than this 'Not this'. Now Its name: 'The Truth of truth'. The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that.


    Note there that it is not merely the world as body of Brahman that has form and attributes. The last mantra is clear that the form within is also endowed with attributes.

    The Upanishads are therefore clear that He has attributes, but that does not make Him mortal, for He is also free from evil attributes, as the chAndogya states:

    VIII-vii-1: The Atman which is free from evil, free from old age, free from death, free from sorrow, free from hunger and thirst, whose desire is of the truth, whose resolve is of the truth, he should be sought, him one should desire to understand. He who has found out and who understands that Atman attains all the worlds and all the desires. Thus spoke Prajapati.

    It is impossible to go over every passage describing the attributes of this Brahman, but suffice it to say that whenever Brahman is described, it is often in sense of having attributes of one sort or another, including attributes of physical form. There are of course, other mantras emphasizing lack of attributes and form, as in the case of mundaka upaniShad 2.1.2-3:

    II-i-2: The Purusha is transcendental, since He is formless. And since He is coextensive with all that is external and internal and since He is birthless, therefore He is without vital force and without mind; He is pure and superior to the (other) superior imperishable (Maya).

    II-i-3: From Him originates the vital force as well as the mind, all the senses, space, air, fire, water, and earth that supports everything.


    Here, the mantras require some understanding. "Form" in this context refers to a form made of matter. That this is so is obvious from context, for it still describes the Brahman as "puruSha" or person, implying form, cognition, and personality. He is without "prANa" and "manas," because He is the source of prAna, manas, indriyas, AkAsha, tejas, jalam, pRithivi, etc. The point is, in Him there are none of these things because these are material evolutes which have their source in Him. A thing without the ability to think and perceive cannot be the origin of things which allow one to think and perceive. Thus, it is not literal "formlessness," "senselessness," or "mindlessness" that is being argued here. What is being stated is that Brahman does not have the manas and indriyas that are evolutes of matter. Yet He is still "puruSha," meaning that He has cognitive and perceptive abilities that are transcendental, unblemished by the forces of time which affect matter.

    In conclusion from this brief survey of shruti mantras, an objective person has to conclude that brahman is an entity who is the supreme person with all-pervading form, and not a formless, attributeless entity which is more appealing to "veiled Buddhists." The shrutis are the authority on these matters for Hindus, and we cannot ignore their statements merely because we do not like them. Nor can we argue that an omnipotent entity cannot have form and qualities, because brahman is a suprasensory entity whose nature cannot be known from perception and deduction, only from shabda-pramaana.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  2. #2

    Re: The "Nirguna" Brahman: Full of Attributes and Unlikely to Change for Our Sake!

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    Brahman is a suprasensory entity whose nature cannot be known from perception and deduction, only from shabda-pramaana.
    I like this entire posting very much. Thank you, Philosoraptor! It seems fairly clear that the term nirguNa is to be understood as "free from limiting or negative qualities" rather than "utterly free from any kind of attribute whatsoever" (and so a non-entity).

    A question regarding Brahman as a supersensory entity whose nature cannot be known from perception (pratyakSa) and deduction (anumAna), only from shabda-pramANa: What do you think of the idea of yogic perception that is distinct from sensory perception? And of the view that the shabda-pramANa was revealed to the RSis via such perception (which is in principle available to any who cultivate the necessary saMskAras)?

    This, I think, is the key issue between traditional and "neo" Hindu thought.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Posts
    1,525
    Rep Power
    2741

    Re: The "Nirguna" Brahman: Full of Attributes and Unlikely to Change for Our Sake!

    Namaste

    I am not so sure if nirguna cannot be without attributes. I guess it depends on what you mean by attributes, which some try to limit to form only.

    Some, sometimes, are implying the advaitan is the advocate not for the infinite, but for a zero. I am not an advaitan, but more than a few I've met are an advocate or a claimant for the infinite, not zero as you might find with some Buddhists.

    And since the infinite is more of all and not nothing, you could argue it is a "characteristic", but since the all by nature of it's very meaning encompasses all characteristics, then it is not specific to one individual - such as saying "you are fat" as a characteristic - but formless since all things includes both fat and skinny. The fatso may have a form of a big fat bear in the forest, but all things is not seen as a bear, or ten heads, or light, or any such things, but a characteristic that defines and thus is in one way formless.

    I suppose one could say, "but yes, all these things, the infinite, each pea in this pod has a form", that's one way to argue your point.

    And like I say, I am not a monist, I am not an advaitan, rather I am just a simple bhakta. But I do not hold anything against them, I am not sure if they even are so different sometimes. For example, you could say that the infinite has the characteristic of all things which has no boundaries and is forever, and thus this characteristic is an attribute and in fact many attributes.

    But attributes of character can exist in nature and be without any form at all, but are very real.

    In fact character attributes in nature often do not have any form at all. Take the character attribute of "self survival" which may be termed "loving or clinging to life" or "self preservation" etc..

    You find this in all sorts of animals and life in nature. I suppose you might say, a tree doesn't show this characteristic or attribute, but then again the study of rings in a tree might argue even a tree has this same characteristic or attribute to self preservation. If someone points a loaded gun at your face, you probably will experience this self preservation sense that seems to span across nature. Yes, there are some who do not care if they live or die. Typically they are either a saint, or a sociopath.

    But this characteristic is very pervasive. Does it have a form?

    You might say it "exists in the mind of that fatso bear" and so it "has the form of a bear".

    I am not so sure about that.

    In fact, you could say this "sense" of self preservation has no attributes at all. Without attributes. How far it goes across the infinite, I don't know.

    But there are a lot of things which one can say are formless and without attributes. Not that I'm taking the advaita side of the argument, if there is an argument, but I don't have some antagonism either.

    They probably disagree 100 percent with everything I just said in context of their understanding. But I certainly would enjoying having a nice bhajan session with them even so. We could all have a happy nirguna day together.

    Om Namah Sivaya

  4. #4

    Re: The "Nirguna" Brahman: Full of Attributes and Unlikely to Change for Our Sake!

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    Namaste,

    There has been quite a bit of discussion lately about the nature of Brahman. Does it have attributes and form in a real sense? Or is it without attributes of any kind? Is He a being endowed with the ability to think, feel, and act (as we are), or is it just an impersonal thing that defies all description? Some of this discussion becomes heated, often by those attached to their monistic view and responding to any scrutiny with "oh, this is becoming an I'm right and you're wrong discussion!" or "You are being argumentative!" But it is more complicated than that.
    Agreed.

    The shrutis are right, and those who disagree with them are wrong, and this has always been the traditional Hindu view.
    Correct.

    So, what do the shrutis have to say on the subject of Brahman? Here, I will go over a brief survey of mainstream pramANas whose authority is accepted by all major schools of vedAnta. I will focus primarily on shruti, and will not even quote from questionable sources. Let us put aside preconceived, sectarian notions of what brahman must be, and consult the shrutis.
    Ah, I see you are doing something Tattvavada style with your whole post...

    First, a word about logic. The idea of an entity without attributes is a paradox.
    Why not?

    We know of no entity in nature that exists and yet has no attributes.
    Of course.

    An entity without attributes cannot be the subject of speech, writing, or any other form of expression. As one member noted somewhat tongue-in-cheek, isn't being without attributes, itself an attribute?
    That is like saying zero has no value. Zero is a number. And all other numbers have values. Therefore zero has value.

    Perhaps, but when we speak of something being "all-pervading," "of the nature of bliss," "the supreme light," etc, these are attributes. One cannot envy the task of the Advaitin, who must prove the existence of something that fundamentally defies the basic law of existence!
    People can never "prove" God in any way whatever the definition assigned to Him. People can only explain to you about God. You must contemplate on your own and testify the proof for yourself.

    The search for God must be something that impels you from within and takes you out of your comfort zone.

    If you want "proof" please go back to tertiary school with your atheistic way of studying everything. "Proof" based understandings and acceptances are based upon universally verifiable means(everybody can do it, then and there). Means that can be repeated by anybody anytime i.e its easy. Thats not how religion works. I don't mean that the truth of religion isn't one that defies affirmation by others or that its means cannot be standardized and isn't applicable for all. What I mean is that it isn't; something that can be easily exposed to someone who isn't qualified or that its worth can be reduced by being commonplace. Its not a one time and once and for all type of a thing. The results are not bare and evident to the point of being easily susceptible and subjectable for scrutiny.

    When you search for God, the entire universe becomes your school of study. And everything around you can possibly give you the answers.(Rishi Gautama to Satyakama)http://www.balagokulam.org/kids/stories/satyakama.php

    viṣṇornu kaṃ vīryāṇi pra vocaṃ yaḥ pārthivāni vimamerajāṃsi |
    yo askabhāyaduttaraṃ sadhasthaṃ vicakramāṇastredhorughāyaḥ ||

    I WILL declare the mighty deeds of Viṣṇu, of him who measured out the earthly regions, Who propped the highest place of congregation, thrice setting down his footstep, widely striding. (Rg veda 1.154.1)

    ayaṃ sahasraṃ ṛṣibhiḥ sahaskṛtaḥ samudra iva paprathe |
    satyaḥ so asya mahimā ghṛṇe śavo yajñeṣu viprarājye ||

    He, with his might enhanced by Ṛṣis thousandfold, hath like an ocean spread himself. His majesty is praised as true at solemn rites, his power where holy singers rule. (Rg veda 8.3.4)

    The taittirIya AraNyaka containing the famous puruSha-sukta has the following:

    sahasrashIrShA puruShaH sahasrAkShassahasrapAt |
    sa bhUmiM vishvato vRtvA atyatiShTaddashANgulam|| TA 3.12.1 ||

    With countless number of heads, eyes, and feet, the puruSHa pervades the Earth and extends far beyond. (taittirIya AraNyaka 3.12.1)

    vedAhametaM puruShaM mahAntam AdityavarNaM tamasastu pAre |
    sarvANi rUpANi vichitya dhIraH nAmAni kRitvA'bhivadanyadAste || TA 3.12.7 ||

    I have realized the supreme puruSHa, brilliant as the solar hue
    and beyond the veil of darkness. All the forms are formulated,
    categorized and sustained by that wise and glorious being. (taittirIya AraNyaka 3.12.7)
    Why are you regurgitating Tattvavada polemics tactics of certain verses they like to quote in support of their philosophy-theological model?

    Now the bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad is more explicit on this point, for it explicitly names the world of matter as one of the forms of Brahman, and then describes more attributes of Brahman, the knowing of which leads to moksha:

    II-iii-1: Brahman has but two forms - gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, defined and undefined.

    II-iii-2: The gross (form) is that which is other than air and the ether. It is mortal, it is limited, and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the sun that shines, for it is the essence of the defined.

    II-iii-3: Now the subtle - it is air and the ether. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is the being that is in the sun, for that is the essence of the undefined. This is with reference to the gods.

    II-iii-4: Now with reference to the body: the gross form is but this - what is other than (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body. It is mortal, it is limited and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the eye, for it is the essence of the defined.

    II-iii-5: Now the subtle - it is (the corporeal) air and the ether that is in the body. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is this being that is in the right eye, for this is the essence of the undefined.

    II-iii-6: The form of that 'being' is as follows: like a cloth dyed with turmeric, or like grey sheep's wool, or like the (scarlet) insect called Indragopa, or like a tongue of fire, or like a white lotus, or like a flash of lightning. He who knows it as such attains splendour like a flash of lightning. Now therefore the description (of Brahman): 'Not this, not this'. Because there is no other and more appropriate description than this 'Not this'. Now Its name: 'The Truth of truth'. The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that.

    Note there that it is not merely "the world as body of Brahman"... - has form and attributes -

    The last mantra is clear that the form within is also endowed with attributes.
    What?

    The Upanishads are therefore clear that He has attributes, but that does not make Him mortal, for He is also free from evil attributes, as the chAndogya states:
    Implying that Mortal = Evil...

    A thing without the ability to think and perceive cannot be the origin of things which allow one to think and perceive.
    Thus, it is not literal "formlessness," "senselessness," or "mindlessness" that is being argued here. What is being stated is that Brahman does not have the manas and indriyas that are evolutes of matter. Yet He is still "puruSha," meaning that He has cognitive and perceptive abilities that are transcendental, unblemished by the forces of time which affect matter.
    In conclusion from this brief survey of shruti mantras, an objective person has to conclude that brahman is an entity who is the supreme person with all-pervading form,
    and not a formless, attributeless entity which is more appealing to "veiled Buddhists." The shrutis are the authority on these matters for Hindus, and we cannot ignore their statements merely because we do not like them. Nor can we argue that an omnipotent entity cannot have form and qualities, because brahman is a suprasensory entity whose nature cannot be known from perception and deduction, only from shabda-pramaana.
    Ok maybe instead of being paranoid. I will let this person carry on with what they wanted to say.
    Last edited by Kumar_Das; 20 December 2012 at 08:34 AM.

  5. #5

    Re: The "Nirguna" Brahman: Full of Attributes and Unlikely to Change for Our Sake!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffery D. Long View Post
    I like this entire posting very much. Thank you, Philosoraptor! It seems fairly clear that the term nirguNa is to be understood as "free from limiting or negative qualities" rather than "utterly free from any kind of attribute whatsoever" (and so a non-entity).

    A question regarding Brahman as a supersensory entity whose nature cannot be known from perception (pratyakSa) and deduction (anumAna), only from shabda-pramANa: What do you think of the idea of yogic perception that is distinct from sensory perception? And of the view that the shabda-pramANa was revealed to the RSis via such perception (which is in principle available to any who cultivate the necessary saMskAras)?

    This, I think, is the key issue between traditional and "neo" Hindu thought.
    Excellent point.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: The "Nirguna" Brahman: Full of Attributes and Unlikely to Change for Our Sake!

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    The idea of an entity without attributes is a paradox.
    How so? What is your understanding of an attribute? Please define it.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    November 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    21
    Rep Power
    70

    Re: The "Nirguna" Brahman: Full of Attributes and Unlikely to Change for Our Sake!

    Namaste philosoraptor,

    Let me point the flaws in your post

    1. The most common mistake is about the levels of reality, note that in Shri Adi Shankara's philosophy, he introduces three levels of reality: PAramArthika, vyAvahArika, prAthibhAsika.
    Words like non-dual, attributeless, infinite, etc. all all from the vyAvahArika satyam. While from the pAramArthika perspective, nothing can be said. Why? Because there is only Brahman. It is even wrong to say "that there is only brahman". Only in the phenomenal world, do we have words such as: infinite, finite, attribute, world, planet, color, form, shape, etc.. Since there is diversity, and duality. In the pAramArthika plane, there is no such thing. All words like brahman, non-dual, absolute, Truth, consciousness, etc. are all wrong in the Absolute sense (pAramArthika satyam).
    I guess that answers the question:
    As one member noted somewhat tongue-in-cheek, isn't being without attributes, itself an attribute? Perhaps, but when we speak of something being "all-pervading," "of the nature of bliss," "the supreme light," etc, these are attributes.
    2. Another thing you should note is that there is a saguNa brahman and a nirguNa brahman. So all forms and aspects and descriptions are of SaguNa brahman only.
    The creator of the world, the sustainer, and destroyer is saguNa brahman. But from the pAramArthika perspective:
    There is neither dissolution nor creation, none in bondage and none practicing disciplines. There is none seeking Liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth.
    -Mandukya Upanishads.

    3. One of the definitions of brahman (from the vyAvahArika satyam) is sat-chid-ananda. Chid means consciousness. In deep sleep the mind is not working, and there is still consciousness. So brahman is not a non-conscious entity like a rock or a table.
    Last edited by Nirguna; 20 December 2012 at 09:01 AM.

  8. #8

    Re: The "Nirguna" Brahman: Full of Attributes and Unlikely to Change for Our Sake!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffery D. Long View Post
    I like this entire posting very much. Thank you, Philosoraptor! It seems fairly clear that the term nirguNa is to be understood as "free from limiting or negative qualities" rather than "utterly free from any kind of attribute whatsoever" (and so a non-entity).
    Pranams. Some schools, like those of Chaitanya, do use the term "nirguNa" in precisely that sense - as having no material qualities. Others may default to the Advaitic usage of guna simply meaning attribute in a general sense, but they still maintain the same concept - that brahman has infinite divine attributes but is free from material qualities.

    A question regarding Brahman as a supersensory entity whose nature cannot be known from perception (pratyakSa) and deduction (anumAna), only from shabda-pramANa: What do you think of the idea of yogic perception that is distinct from sensory perception? And of the view that the shabda-pramANa was revealed to the RSis via such perception (which is in principle available to any who cultivate the necessary saMskAras)?

    This, I think, is the key issue between traditional and "neo" Hindu thought.
    What I meant to say is that, one cannot know brahman through perception or deduction alone, as I note some on this thread are already trying to do. With unpurified senses, we cannot perceive brahman's existence or omnipresence. And with deduction based on data gathered via limited senses, we cannot reliably deduce anything reliable about brahman. Only knowledge from a source unlimited by human defects can give us this knowledge about a suprasensory entity, hence shabda-pramaana. But, with senses and mind purified by the discipline of studying the Veda, performing austerity, meditating on Brahman, etc, one develops the purified vision by which one can see Him. Hence we find in the mundaka upaniShad:

    III-i-5: The bright and pure Self within the body, that the monks with (habitual effort and) attenuated blemishes see, is attainable verily through truth, concentration, complete knowledge, and continence, practiced constantly.

    and the prashnopaniShad:

    I-15: This being so, those who undertake the well-known vow of the Lord of all creatures, beget both sons and daughters. For them alone is this world of the moon in whom there are the vows and continence, and in whom is found for ever avoidance of falsehood.

    I-16: For them is that taintless world of Brahman, in whom there is no crookedness no falsehood, and no dissimulation.


    Note that this does not refer to knowledge obtained independently of shabda.

    The key point between traditional and neo-hindu schools as I can see it, is that the latter give primarily lip service to the importance of shabda, but see shAstra primarily as a means to inspire noble thoughts rather than a source of noble thoughts. Thus, while the traditional vedantin employs interpretation in order to elucidate what the mantra is trying to say, the neo-vedantin places greater emphasis on what the mantra means to the individual. To the latter, "truth is whatever is true for you." Early neo-Hindu thinkers tacitly admitted to this when they spoke (as Swami Vivekananda did) of inaugurating a "new Hinduism" (was there something wrong with the old?).

    Quote Originally Posted by Nirguna View Post
    Namaste philosoraptor,

    Let me point the flaws in your post

    1. The most common mistake is about the levels of reality, note that in Shri Adi Shankara's philosophy, he introduces three levels of reality: PAramArthika, vyAvahArika, prAthibhAsika.
    Words like non-dual, attributeless, infinite, etc. all all from the vyAvahArika satyam. While from the pAramArthika perspective, nothing can be said. Why? Because there is only Brahman. It is even wrong to say "that there is only brahman". Only in the phenomenal world, do we have words such as: infinite, finite, attribute, world, planet, color, form, shape, etc.. Since there is diversity, and duality. In the pAramArthika plane, there is no such thing. All words like brahman, non-dual, absolute, Truth, consciousness, etc. are all wrong in the Absolute sense (pAramArthika satyam).
    I guess that answers the question:
    Pranams. Adi Shankara's views are well known to me. And with all due respect to that august personality, the attempt to to designate shruti's descriptions of brahman as being only on an illusory level of perception, effectively states that the shrutis speak falsehoods. For if the world is not real, and our perception is due to avidyA, then even the attributes of brahman and His overlordship vis-a-vis the devas and the phenomenal creation (all spoken of in shruti) is also a product of the same. More to the point, the shrutis themselves never state that these descriptions are only applicable to a "lower" level of perception, illusory or otherwise. Then one might logically ask - if shrutis are mostly discussing this on the so-called vyavahArika level of perception, then how do I know which descriptions correspond to vyavahArika perception and which to paramArthika perception? Now I cannot trust shruti to tell me, as even what is in shruti may not be real. So then, I go to an external authority (Adi Shankara) to tell me which vAkyas are to be emphasized. In that case, why bother with shruti at all? Just go to the guru and let him tell you the truth...

    2. Another thing you should note is that there is a saguNa brahman and a nirguNa brahman. So all forms and aspects and descriptions are of SaguNa brahman only.
    The creator of the world, the sustainer, and destroyer is saguNa brahman. But from the pAramArthika perspective:
    There is neither dissolution nor creation, none in bondage and none practicing disciplines. There is none seeking Liberation and none liberated. This is the absolute truth.
    -Mandukya Upanishads.
    There is no such statement in the mAndukya equating some descriptions to vyavahArika perception/saguNa brahman and others to paramArthika perception/nirguNa brahman. The mAndukya actually describes the four different levels of consciouness of the self such as the waking state, dream state, state of deep sleep, and the fourth. The fourth state cannot be the paramArthika consciousness which you spoke of, the one in which you say brahman cannot be described, cannot even be described as being only one, etc, because mantras 7 and 12 which describe this state specifically state that this entity is to be known.

    As far as the shrutis are concerned, brahman is transcendental to prakRiti and the guNas, in spite of having attributes and form. Here is some evidence:


    vedAhametaM puruShaM mahAntam AdityavarNaM tamasastu pAre |
    sarvANi rUpANi vichitya dhIraH nAmAni kRitvA'bhivadanyadAste || TA 3.12.7 ||

    I have realized the supreme puruSHa, brilliant as the solar hue and beyond the veil of darkness. All the forms are formulated, categorized and sustained by that wise and glorious being. (taittirIya AraNyaka 3.12.7)


    Note here that it is not a formless, attributeless entity beyond tamas that has been realized, but a supreme person, of the brilliance of the sun, who is beyond tamas. We find similar statements in the chAndogya upaniShad also:


    III-xii-6: Such is the greatness of this (Brahman called Gayatri). The Person is even greater than this. All this world is a quarter of Him, the other three quarters of His constitute immortality in heaven.


    and the mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad of the kRiShNa yajurveda:

    XII-1: The Infinite Self more minute than the minute and greater than the great is set in the heart of the beings here. Through the grace of the Creator one realises Him who is free from desires based on values, who is supremely great and who is the highest ruler and master of all, and becomes free from sorrows.

    Thus, it is not a formless, impersonal entity that is beyond everything, but a Supreme Purusha, master of all, who is greater than the greatest and free from all blemishes.

    3. One of the definitions of brahman (from the vyAvahArika satyam) is sat-chid-ananda. Chid means consciousness. In deep sleep the mind is not working, and there is still consciousness. So brahman is not a non-conscious entity like a rock or a table.
    Either brahman is conscious or He is not. Either vyavahArika perception is true or it is not. Clearly, by attributing truth to it, as you are now doing, you instinctively recognize the philosophical problems in holding the world, perception, etc as unreal. I submit that many Advaitins seem torn between, on one hand declaring vyavhArika perception as true and on the other hand declaring everything else other than the indescribable brahman as false. But even still, there is no reason to to attach greater importance to the so-called paramArthika level of realization. For a brahman that cannot be described, yet must be "known" as per the statements of shruti, is a contradiction. Why then bother with this formless, attributeless, indescribable concept of brahman? What advantage is there in arguing for its existence, when any description one applies to it is wrong (aside from the fact that it is appealing to people with a less theistic bent)?

    regards,
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  9. #9

    Re: The "Nirguna" Brahman: Full of Attributes and Unlikely to Change for Our Sake!

    You know, and I know, that you have some explaining to do with the useage of the word "Form". Please explain what you mean by "form" and "attributes". Do you literally mean that God has a "form"?

  10. #10

    Re: The "Nirguna" Brahman: Full of Attributes and Unlikely to Change for Our Sake!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kumar_Das View Post
    You know, and I know, that you have some explaining to do with the useage of the word "Form". Please explain what you mean by "form" and "attributes". Do you literally mean that God has a "form"?
    I'm still waiting for someone to properly define the word "is" for me.....
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •