Brahman- Saguna/Nirguna?

[SOV]

I have been reading various texts both online and offline regarding brahman. I came across a lot of situations where there is mentioned about Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. My initial thought was, Is there any term like Saguna Brahman? Whenever there is a mention of Brahman in Upanishads or Brahmasutra, It is said to be Nirguna or gunateeta-beyond three gunas. But Nowhere is mentioned in these original texts as Saguna Brahman. Is Saguna Brahman supposed to be opposite of Nirguna Brahman? I am not sure. Normally when the Dieties are considered as Brahman, some say it is Saguna Brahman. But Is this right?

One clear sequence is there for our pondering, in the Bhagavad Geeta where Arjuna asks Shri Krishna- O keshava, which one is better for meditation, Is it your Vyakta rupa OR Avyakta rupa? to which Shri Krishna says- Vyakta rupa. This terminology is apt for describing Brahman, I believe. Because Brahman is always Nirguna, wheather Vyakta OR Avyakta. If we think Dieties like Krishna act upon guna, then it is quite contradictary to what Krishna says in the Geeta- Traigunyo vishaya veda, Nistraigunyo bhavarjuna-Three gunas we are aware of from the vedas, Be different from these- That also means there is no other special divine guna reserved for Gods. Atleast, there is no proof for this either from scripture or by any logic.

In the waking state, we experience the subject-object relation and this is Vyakta. In the deep-sleep state there is no such S-O relation and it is avyakta. Now this whole world is the Vyakta rupa and during the end of kalpa, everything will be destroyed and that is avyakta rupa. Before birth, it was Avyakta and now it is Vyakta and after death, it is avyakta again. All these cycles of Vyakta and Avyakta happens in 'him'. Brahman is beyond vyakta and avyakta and yet he is present in both the states, as he is present every where, every time. And where do we experience this? In the body. This body which is the kshetra and who is experiencing it? Kshetrajna- The person(purusha) in the body. So Brahman is always without any gunas, beyond our mental comprehension but always present in everything and everyone. It is due to the avidya or Ignorance(Not knowing the real nature) that a person attributes the gunas to himself.

Then a question arises- How does one meditate on vyakta rupa of brahman like rama, krishna, shiva? Why would one meditate on Ishvara if the kshetrajna himself is Brahman?

It is very important to understand the all-pervasive nature of the lord first. If 'I' am not the body, not the senses, not this or that, then what am 'I'? Ans is - Chidanda Rupam - The mind-intellect when it is firm without doubts and without imperfections like raga-dvesha, and such dualities, then there itself one knows the brahman. This experience is called Bhuma-fullness. In order to achieve this chitta shuddhi- to cross beyond dualities, the mind has to be quietened and it should be one pointed. Some scriptures like Brahma sutra suggest the use of a symbol or form, but one should attribute the qualities like omnescience etc on it. But since this is difficult, it is so much meaningful if one meditates on ishvara since we can think of him always by chanting his names, reading his leelas and adoring him. One can easily attribute all the things around like sweetness coldness to ishvara. This is an act of tyaga-renouncing the fruits. By renouncing each and every fruits of action, good or bad, the mind becomes steady in him. This is called karma yoga. Well, what can bind the person who is not affected by anything that happens/happens not?

[Onkara]

Namasté SOV
This is a profound and well researched post. Thank you for sharing this. I don't see any question which you have not yet answered yourself. The path justifies the goal and all discrepancies may well be forgiven when arriving at their divine source.

[Mana]

Namasté SOV

I offer this model as a tool with which you may answer some of your questions.

The relative nature of Prakriti can be demonstrated by visualising the Gunas as three dimensions in which the Atman travels, there can be no movement out side of time.
Time is therefore, as relative to the Gunas as it is to our worldly dimensions profoundly linking these two worlds in which both our subtle and material body's live.

That which is "seen" by the observer is relative to their position direction and speed.

Om Shiva!

[kallol]

Dear SOV,

Appreciate your thought process and the question arising out of it. Meditating on a subject can be done with purpose if the subject is vyakta state. This makes the meditation much easier and really speaking many of our known spiritual greats have followed this - Ramakrishna, Bamakyapa, Meera, Chaitanya, etc.

As the Supreme Lord is manifest in any form (Biswarupa), it does not matter what the subject is. It can be a linga or a flame or human form or other form provided the bhakta has faith and devotion towards the subject. God manifests in Bhakta's realisation in the same form. The Knowledge (what we know from the scriptures) is also delivered through the subject.

However for the abaktya state of brahman, the meditation generally starts with enquiry - like "who am I" (most common question) and thereafter many others. This deep enquiry directly leads to a knowledge elightenment.

However your question whether Brahman is Saguna or Nirguna is really a perplexing one. I believe it varies due to different gharanas of interpretations and different way people achieved the knowledge.

Mostly people achieving knowledge out of vyakta route will have a different way of interpretation than the ones in the avyakta route.

Love and best wishes

[SOV]

Thanks everyone for your inputs.

Dear SOV,

Appreciate your thought process and the question arising out of it. Meditating on a subject can be done with purpose if the subject is vyakta state. This makes the meditation much easier and really speaking many of our known spiritual greats have followed this - Ramakrishna, Bamakyapa, Meera, Chaitanya, etc.

As the Supreme Lord is manifest in any form (Biswarupa), it does not matter what the subject is. It can be a linga or a flame or human form or other form provided the bhakta has faith and devotion towards the subject. God manifests in Bhakta's realisation in the same form. The Knowledge (what we know from the scriptures) is also delivered through the subject.

However for the abaktya state of brahman, the meditation generally starts with enquiry - like "who am I" (most common question) and thereafter many others. This deep enquiry directly leads to a knowledge elightenment.

Brahman is beyond the avyakta state. We say avyakta if there is ignorance still and vyakta state is expected. When the avidya dissolves completely, then there is neither vyakta or avyakta. In the post above, I was referring to the sadhana part. In any case, One has to enquire about the self .

However your question whether Brahman is Saguna or Nirguna is really a perplexing one. I believe it varies due to different gharanas of interpretations and different way people achieved the knowledge.

Mostly people achieving knowledge out of vyakta route will have a different way of interpretation than the ones in the avyakta route.

Love and best wishes

Yes, people have different views about brahman. That is why there are different sects. But since brahman is absolute, only with absolute understanding can we realize it.

[Eastern Mind]

But since brahman is absolute, only with absolute understanding can we realize it.

Vannakkam: Or did you mean 'only with absolute realisation can we understand it' ?

Aum Namasivaya

[SOV]

Namaste,
No. I don't see how one can get 'absolute realization'(whatever that means) without knowing what one is realizing.

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste,
No. I don't see how one can get 'absolute realization'(whatever that means) without knowing what one is realizing.

Vannakkam: What I meant was Self-Realisation. From my understanding you can't really fully know Brahman unless you Realise it. I think our understanding of the term 'understanding' is different, but I could be wrong.

Regardless, I'm not about to get into some argument I 'know' nothing about, due to no direct experience in this regard.

Aum Namasivaya

[SOV]

True. But we need to know the nature of brahman correctly. It is revealed by knowledge and none other.
regards

[Mana]

True. But we need to know the nature of brahman correctly. It is revealed by knowledge and none other.
regards

If this is true then The lord Krishna favours Avyakta rupa. Surely?