Guest guest Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 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 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 "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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.