Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 Namaskaram, I saw some of the recent discussions on nirguna/saguna with Sri and others. While Sri Tony's assertions appeared unfounded, it should be mentioned that such things repeatedly plague and confuse the mind, hence hopefully has a place for discussion, at least if presented as questions rather than conclusions. Our good friends, the Dvaitins, will also raise such intricate questions; so mere quotations of our acharya may not suffice. The advaitins must know precise answers as per their scripture and also know logical responses, if available. (I give below some thoughts and suggest some things I think Sri Tony may have meant. If it is not what he had said or meant, I ask forgiveness.) How can nirguna become saguna? Sri Tony says (I think): if it is truly nirguna, this is not possible. Conclusion: an assertion of saguna now and nirguna later must imply that the nirguna after pralaya is only latent saguna. The potentiality remains. The duality affirmed now remains in seed form; otherwise the question repeats itself. The alternate option: affirm nirguna wholly and deny saguna wholly. This was as I see Sri Tony's position. I think Sri Peter's response on Ajatavada was very appropriate. I don't much understand the precise position of Shankara. Although people have clarified, any repetition or direct pointers to previous posts may be helpful. The way I have attempted to resolve is simply by recognizing that when the ego is affirmed in the mind, the world of perception (saguna) is also affirmed. And in this framework of ego, the highest concept of Brahman is Saguna, i.e. Ishvara. Since the effects are affirmed, the Reality that is basis is seen causally as Ishvara. And when the ego-framework is given up, the Reality is ItSelf. Nothing to say then but nirguna. This position posits saguna as a referential reality, i.e. in reference to our mind. The Reality is the unchanging and permanent basis of all such refential versions; the primary evidence of this is intuited as the atman. The position however forces that we avoid the temptation of interconnecting the ego and non-ego standpoints of Brahman. Take ego - this appears truth; ego gone - Tat Tvam Asi. Don't mix the two. (actually this has connections to the axiom of choice posts of Sri ProfVKji and myself sometime back.) I think this may be close to Sri Tony's position as well; at least the logic may be similar. One can ask then how liberation of ego is possible from within ego. I think this was raised before. Well, how can sleep occur to one not asleep? The standard answer I think is: that liberation is possible is affirmed by the words of the sages and the purpose of religion is to provide the steps to realize that end. Only by following them will we know; no logic can succeed except we may be lost in our own misconceptions. -- Now then where is the fun!! So let us mix the two. Does Saguna really become nirguna after pralaya, or does it maintain some aspect of the saguna? If yes, then " jiva " and " prakrithi " vanish from all subjective and objective existence, dissolved in Ishvara, who in turn enters (??) a deep unspeakable " sleep " . At such a point, one cannot rightly speak of existence or non-existence, for all notion of subject-object consciousness is absent. The logic that asserts " saguna " remains latent also seems flawed, for truly no such duality can be attributed. Then in pralaya, in what sense is Existence/Reality affirmed? Not in any Being sense; the word " nirguna " seems alone appropriate. All guna aspect is lost; all references CEASE to exist (for all such arise from It). What is IS. Then how can such a nirguna Reality appear saguna, bringing forth unto Itself notions of time, space and causation? How can this Reality with all gunas vanished AWAKEN? I suppose that is why we like to think of It as Spiritual or refer as pure Consciousness, as God. It is the very nature of the Thing; the Knower cannot be known. It Awakening, brings forth apparent creation. So if the answer is Yes, one can base all saguna attribution as less real on account of the non-eternality of such, and the Truth affirmed as the nirguna basis (not qualification) of all saguna attribution. Is this Acharya's position? Of course, the visishtadvaitin and dvaita schools believe this type of idea to be logically flawed. So their answer is a clear cut No: saguna is the very nature and it is eternal, they say. thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote: > > Namaskaram, > > How can nirguna become saguna? > > Sri Tony says (I think): if it is truly nirguna, this is not possible. > > Conclusion: an assertion of saguna now and nirguna later must imply > that the nirguna after pralaya is only latent saguna. The potentiality > remains. The duality affirmed now remains in seed form; otherwise the > question repeats itself. > > The alternate option: affirm nirguna wholly and deny saguna wholly. > This was as I see Sri Tony's position. > Does Saguna really > become nirguna after pralaya, or does it maintain some aspect of the > saguna? If yes, then " jiva " and " prakrithi " vanish from all subjective > and objective existence, dissolved in Ishvara, who in turn enters (??) > a deep unspeakable " sleep " . At such a point, one cannot rightly speak > of existence or non-existence, for all notion of subject-object > consciousness is absent. The logic that asserts " saguna " remains > latent also seems flawed, for truly no such duality can be attributed. > > Then in pralaya, in what sense is Existence/Reality affirmed? Not in > any Being sense; the word " nirguna " seems alone appropriate. > All guna aspect is lost; all references CEASE to exist (for all such > arise from It). What is IS. Then how can such a nirguna Reality appear > saguna, bringing forth unto Itself notions of time, space and > causation? How can this Reality with all gunas vanished AWAKEN? > >It Awakening, brings forth apparent creation. > So if the answer is Yes, one can base all saguna attribution as less > real on account of the non-eternality of such, and the Truth affirmed > as the nirguna basis (not qualification) of all saguna attribution. Is > this Acharya's position? > thollmelukaalkizhu > Another thing I thought of about this " Nothing ever happened " . One can justify this viewpoint as a mild variation of " apparent modification of Brahman " . The word " apparent " seems to emphasize that from the paramaarthika standpoint, which constitutes highest knowledge, really " nothing happened " . I saw Sri kuntimaada sadanandaji's essay post 35718. It is scholarly; I will read it over and see if it answers/clarifies my doubts. Jagat is purnam? One way to counter this, that therefore needs clarification, is jagat like jiva is purnam in essence (as a water drop is water in essence) but jagat is not purnam as Whole (as water drop is not ocean). Jagat is by definition that which comes along with jiva: i.e. falls in the objective realm of identification. It is purnam in essence but not in Whole. That is similar to dvaitin arguments; I think sadaji's post clarifies such things but have to read further. May ask doubts later on. thollmelukaalkizhu thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2007 Report Share Posted May 2, 2007 advaitajnana , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote: > > Namaskaram, > > I saw some of the recent discussions on nirguna/saguna with Sri > and others. While Sri Tony's assertions appeared unfounded, it should > be mentioned that such things repeatedly plague and confuse the mind, > hence hopefully has a place for discussion, at least if presented as > questions rather than conclusions. > > Our good friends, the Dvaitins, will also raise such intricate > questions; so mere quotations of our acharya may not suffice. The > advaitins must know precise answers as per their scripture and also > know logical responses, if available. (I give below some thoughts and > suggest some things I think Sri Tony may have meant. If it is not what > he had said or meant, I ask forgiveness.) > > How can nirguna become saguna? > > Sri Tony says (I think): if it is truly nirguna, this is not possible. > > Conclusion: an assertion of saguna now and nirguna later must imply > that the nirguna after pralaya is only latent saguna. The potentiality > remains. The duality affirmed now remains in seed form; otherwise the > question repeats itself. > > The alternate option: affirm nirguna wholly and deny saguna wholly. > This was as I see Sri Tony's position. Namaste, Pralaya is in two forms pralay which extends from the material into the lower subtle and Mahapralay which includes all material and all subtle planes. It makes no difference for it is all in potentiality therefore can only be Saguna, or Nir Guna has no potentiality....This of course indicates it is all a non event...tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2007 Report Share Posted May 3, 2007 advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote: This topic and question got a very nice response in the advaita-vedanta.org e-list group: a group that usually gets " too " technical for me to (want to) keep up. Please see http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2006-November/018660.html It is a response (that I liked) from " amuthan " towards the end of a conversation between himself and Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy. It goes a bit counter to my " total nirguna in pralaya " version (which is more like Annapureddy's assertion). But that is good: I like to keep both options to ponder over. Here is an excerpt (the last para raises a doubt for me: is there not a regular pralaya and a mahapralaya? In regular pralaya, the saguna being preserved, jivas returning etc. but in Mahapralaya, all gone: the true nirguna state attained. This was one of my justifications, but amuthan here seems to suggest only one type of pralaya (regular)): " " " " .... the vyAvahArika and pAramArthika views. it is important to clearly differentiate between the two when discussing about Ishvara. from the pAramArthika viewpoint (i.e. when talking of nirguNa brahman), there is nothing like creation or dissolution or Ishvara or jIva etc. and the present discussion is entirely meaningless from that perspective. however, the moment you adopt the vyAvahArika viewpoint, all enquiries are done with reference to saguNa brahman only since nirguNa brahman has nothing to do with any vyavahAra. the Ishvara who exists during pralaya is saguNa brahman only, not nirguNa brahman. ('existence' is nirguNa brahman.) saguNa brahman need not always be with a name and form. what defines saguNatva is the presence of a guNa. Ishvara is anAma and arUpa during pralaya, but this does not imply that he is nirguNa. jagatkAraNatvAdi guNAs still exist in a latent form in Ishvara during pralaya. thus, it is saguNa brahman who remains without names and forms during pralaya and it is saguNa brahman who manifests names and forms during sRShTi. .... true, everything is withdrawn during pralaya, but that does not amount to a destruction of the special rUpAs or lokAs of Ishvara since they exist the subsequent creations also [1]. it is just that these are not manifested during pralaya. will the limbs of a tortoise become non-existent after they have been withdrawn? non-manifestation does not amount to destruction. moreover, since all jIvAs are withdrawn, to whom can the lokAs or forms be manifested? " " " " advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote: > > Namaskaram, > How can nirguna become saguna? > > Conclusion: an assertion of saguna now and nirguna later must imply > that the nirguna after pralaya is only latent saguna. The potentiality > remains. The duality affirmed now remains in seed form; otherwise the > question repeats itself. > --- End forwarded message --- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 --- Peter <not_2 wrote: > > " " Can there be 'is-ness' WITHOUT nAma-rUpa? > > apologies, > Peter Peter - praNAms There is a famous sloka from dRik-dRisya viveka, a composition attributed to Shankara. It says: asti bhaati priyam ruupam naaman chaityanca panchakam| adhya trayam brahma ruupam jagat ruupam tathaadvayam|| It says - asti -existence, bhaati power of being known, priyam, being liked, and ruupam and naamam that are being referred to - these five aspects are involved in the knowledge-existence of any object. The first three arise from Brahman while the last two are from the world - which is essentially appearances. If we say naamam and ruupam 'is' that is-ness is arising from Brahman only. Existence of the object is intimately connected to the knowledge of its existence, since without the knowledge of the existence of the object; its existence cannot be independently established. But existence is not limited by ruupam which involves a boundary for the object, since existence extends beyond the boundary too- since the space that exists in which the form is defined extends beyond the form. Existence is therefore limitless and it lends its existence to the existence of the form which of course can be named (naama) to identify that form from other forms. Hari Om! Sadananda 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.