Saguna and Pralayas.

[Guest guest]

-- In 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.

>

> 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

 

Namaste,

 

Pralaya is in two forms pralaya 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, for Nir Guna has no potentiality....This of course

indicates it is all a non event...tony.