saguna and nirguna

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

Some members have had a knee-jerk reaction to Pradeep Janakiraman's

comment that the Parabrahman "is both 'Nirgunam' (without Rajas,

and Tamas gunas) and yet 'Sagunam' posessing Ananta-Kalyaana-Gunams."

Apparently the objection is to the word "nirguna".

 

I should point out that Pradeep has carefully delineated

what he meant by nirguna and saguna and his words are consistent

with Visishtadvaita. 'nirguna' is very different from 'nirvisesha',

though the former can mean the latter. In the Upanishads, however,

nirguna means bereft of defiling gunas -- consisting of pure

sattva. As Alavandar rhetorically asks, "parama-sattva samASrayaH

kaH" -- Who else is the abode of pure sattva?

 

Or we could turn to Sri Ramanuja's mangala-sloka to Vedarthasangraha:

 

nirmala-ananta-kalyANa-nidhayE vishNavE namaH |

 

where the two polarities of being both totally bereft of

mundane, defiling qualities and being the abode of all

auspiciousness is declared.

 

It is interesting to note that purity is not the same

as auspiciousness. Something can be pure but not necessarily

mangalam or auspicious. The Parabrahman contains both

as essential facets of Its being.

 

Sri Abhinava Ranganatha Parakala Swami who adorned the

seat of Sri Parakala Matha for decades this past century,

used to opine that Visishtadvaitins should not abandon

but _champion_ the term nirguna, to underscore its

difference from nirvisesha. The former, after all, is

used in many places in the Vedanta, Itihasa, and Purana,

whereas the latter is a peculiarity of the school of

Advaita.

 

aDiyEn rAmanuja dAsan,

Mani