Saguna Brahman/Nirguna Brahman

[Guest guest]

In the Bhakti traditions, Saguna Brahman is seen as the higher Brahman and

Nirguna Brahman as the lower.

On what philosophical basis?

How can something be supreme to Supreme Void?

 

Alice

 

 

 

 

Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Please refer to this excellent article by our dear Sunderji with the

title - What is Love or Prema?

URL: http://www.ambaa.org/bhakti/comments2.htm

 

This question has also been answered by Lord Krishna in Gita. From

the advaitic point of view, the level of one's spiritual maturity

determines how one sees 'God' whether as Saguna or nirguna.

According to Gita, the Brahman is always Brahman, for some, He is

Saguna and for others He is nirguna! Brahman is above all attributes

and the philosophically speaking, Saguna Brahman is the intellectual

perception of Brahman and Nirguna is beyond the human perception!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, d_ee_pika <d_ee_pika> wrote:

> In the Bhakti traditions, Saguna Brahman is seen as the higher

Brahman and Nirguna Brahman as the lower.

> On what philosophical basis?

> How can something be supreme to Supreme Void?

>

> Alice

>

>

>

>

> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

>

>

[Guest guest]

"According to the Gita, the Brahman is always Brahman, for some he is Saguna and

for others he is Nirguna."

Well said even if I think that in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition they interpret

the Gita in different way...

 

 

Ram Chandran <rchandran wrote:

Namaste:

 

Please refer to this excellent article by our dear Sunderji with the

title - What is Love or Prema?

URL: http://www.ambaa.org/bhakti/comments2.htm

 

This question has also been answered by Lord Krishna in Gita. From

the advaitic point of view, the level of one's spiritual maturity

determines how one sees 'God' whether as Saguna or nirguna.

According to Gita, the Brahman is always Brahman, for some, He is

Saguna and for others He is nirguna! Brahman is above all attributes

and the philosophically speaking, Saguna Brahman is the intellectual

perception of Brahman and Nirguna is beyond the human perception!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, d_ee_pika <d_ee_pika> wrote:

> In the Bhakti traditions, Saguna Brahman is seen as the higher

Brahman and Nirguna Brahman as the lower.

> On what philosophical basis?

> How can something be supreme to Supreme Void?

>

> Alice

>

>

>

>

> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

>

>

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, d_ee_pika <d_ee_pika> wrote:

> In the Bhakti traditions, Saguna Brahman is seen as the higher

Brahman and Nirguna Brahman as the lower.

> On what philosophical basis?

> How can something be supreme to Supreme Void?

>

> Alice

>

Namaste

 

I just now noticed this posting by Alice. I also saw the responses

of Ramachandran and Deepika.

 

I only want to comment on the words "Supreme Void" used by Alice in

the above first post on this thread. Nirguna brahman is not 'void'.

It is an Ocean of Consciousness. It is to understand this as such,

the prakriyas of Atmanandaji are being elaborately and beautifully

described in the flood of posts of this month by Shri Ananda Wood.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that nirguna brahman is not any

void or emptiness. The thought that it is a void or something like a

void will go against the very fundamental lesson of advaita.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, d_ee_pika <d_ee_pika> wrote:

> In the Bhakti traditions, Saguna Brahman is seen as the higher

Brahman and Nirguna Brahman as the lower.

> On what philosophical basis?

> How can something be supreme to Supreme Void?

>

> Alice

 

 

Hi Alice,

 

I know one philosophical idea for this. I believe it implicit in

Ramanuja's psychology, but I might be mistaken.

 

Here's how it goes: When we're speaking of the Nirguna Brahman, and

the Saguna Brahman, what we are speaking of, psychologically, is the

formless, empty awareness, and the form-possessing, full spectrum of

sensation. This division is encountered in many ways in Indian

thought, such as the Two Birds of the Upanishads, Purusha & Prakriti

of Samkhya, Buddha-nature & Skandhas of certain Buddhist schools,

Atman/Brahman & Jiva in Advaita, Shiva & Shakti in tantra, etc.

 

Or, down to its fundamental point, we're talking about the subject and

object - and by subject, it is the subject that is not an object nor

associated with objects. Not the mental subject...

 

So the philosophical question is whether this subject requires the

object for its existence, or whether it has an existence independent

of the object.

 

If it has an existence independent of the object, then the object is

something alien, or foreign to it (like an upadhi or limiting adjunct)

, and the subject itself is prime. A philosophical reason for

believing this is that the subject, as potential awareness, must

pre-exist its relationship with the object, as actual awareness. It

must be a living substance, so to speak.

 

As far as I understand it, this is the basis for the various formless

types of mysticism.

 

The argument Ramanuja gives, and some of the Buddhists, is that this

empty subject, without an object, is nothing at all - it's a

contradiction in terms to speak of a subject without an object,

because the fact of the subject implies the fact of the object.

 

The Advaitins do say that the Atman is not a subject when there is no

longer any Upadhis, and its witness nature is not its ultimate nature,

but they do admit its real existence without the presence of objects,

as formless, mindless, worldless being.

 

But, if it is as Ramanuja argues - that this Atman without any Maya is

a nothing, totally empty - then the object begins to take primacy

again, because it gives life to the empty subject. They are mutually

supporting - and God is like this also. The world of form isn't looked

upon with the same disgust or disdain, as it is seen to be necessary

to existence, and so God's form also. Since the object is seen as

real, along with the subject, they comprise a single reality, which is

also God's nature.

 

The Buddhists take a different route, but on the a similar basis as

Ramanuja's arguments about consciousness.

 

Now, that's just the way I look at it in my head. I'm real, real shaky

on the Bhakti texts, and I might be misrepresenting them - so, don't

take my word for it. And take some grains of salt with it too.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> I just now noticed this posting by Alice. I also saw the responses

> of Ramachandran and Deepika.

>

> I only want to comment on the words "Supreme Void" used by Alice in

> the above first post on this thread. Nirguna brahman is not 'void'.

> It is an Ocean of Consciousness. It is to understand this as such,

> the prakriyas of Atmanandaji are being elaborately and beautifully

> described in the flood of posts of this month by Shri Ananda Wood.

> Anyway, I just wanted to point out that nirguna brahman is not any

> void or emptiness. The thought that it is a void or something like a

> void will go against the very fundamental lesson of advaita.

>

> praNAms to all advaitins

> profvk

 

 

Hi V. Krishnamurthy

 

I think the term "void" is used in certain Vedantic texts.

 

I'd like to know your thoughts on it ultimately, rather than mid-way -

i.e. do you see all things being resolved back into a formless

consciousness, or does the world of form, in a sense, constitute the

Atman/Brahman?