Vedanta - Discussion Forum I (introductory))

Sunder · (This post was last modified: 01-26-2005, 01:20 AM by Sunder.)

Shruthi says, 'The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.' This is a statement. The Mahavaakyas say, "AHAM Brahmaa'smi" and not Aham Brahma asthi. It is said, 'Thath Thvam asi'. These statements directly point out that the Jeeva is none other than the Brahman. Else, the maha-vaakhyas would say, "You are *like* Brahman", or that you are a tiny version of Brahman. We see that Shruthi does not declare so.

Also, how can one BECOME Brahman by knowing 'IT' unless the knower is already IT? Thus, Advaitha explains that the false notion of 'I am the body' is given up, and 'I am Brahman' is realized. This fact is supported by the Chandogya Upanishad with the incident of Indra and Virochana taking up Brahmacharya under Prajapathi.

Vishishtadvaitha does not have a convincing explanation of the Mahavaakhyas if the distinction between jeeva/jagath/ishwara is clearly demarcated.

Speaking of Narayana, Nirguna etc. I now resort to Purusha Suktham, where it mentions that 'Tripaadasaamrutham dhivi', and 'Thripaad-oordhva Udaith Purushah, Paadosya Ihaa Bhavaath Punah'. Only a small fraction of the Nirguna is actually appearing as the Universe. The Nirguna, is conceptually beyond and apart from the drama of Creation. Here, Vishishtadvaitha talks only of the smaller portion as the Narayana, which caters to and maintains this Universe. The Above and Beyond seems to be beyond the scope of Vishishtadvaitha.

If this is the case, i.e. scope limitation. Then there is absolutely no contradictions in the philosophies.

gangajal · 01-26-2005, 01:48 AM

QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Jan 25 2005, 09:54 PM)


Although Brahman as an ocean has been mentioned several times in Indian scriptures, the advaitic view of brahman is not that of an ocean. The ocean still is made of a multiplicity of water elements/molecules. While the brahman is one without a second, without any divisions or parts whatsoever[QUOTE]

This is extending the analogy beyond its validity. Water stands for formlessness while ice stands for form.

Brahman is often described as 'all'. The advaitic view of brahman is not this. Brahman is not 'all' that appears. It is the one when the ignorant perception of multiplicity constituting the sense of 'all' is negated by a higher perception of 'unity'.
In this sense there is a real problem. Scriptures have many statements which would suggest the God/Brahman/Narayana exists simultaneously and independently along with the world. Advaita on the other hand clearly states that when one becomes conscious of the brahman, the world can not be real in that state.[QUOTE]

Yes, Brahman is ALL but the problem is that we do not see Brahman but only the multiplicity. I have given below some quotes from Svetasvatara Upanishad to show the difficulty. The Upanishad seems to be saying that Brahman is everything and yet we do not see that. Hence the reality that we do see normally can not be as TRUE as the reality depicted by the scripture that Brahman is both the green parrot and the blue bee, is also with form (check 1, 2,4,5,6), is without form (3,7), is the insentient world (8,10) and jeeva (9,10) and exists ALONE (2). This is the reason why Advaita says the world is mithya. The fact that we do not see Brahman but only multiplicity forces Advaita to say that only when the multiplicty is sublated one can see the underlying unity. Ramanuja on the other hand just joins Narayana, jeeva and Jagat into one complex. It seems to me that such a view just can not be right if you accept quote 2 that Brahman exists ALONE. Ramanuja's position is the common sense view of people but does not seem to me to be in accordance with the quotes I have presented. Advaita view on the other hand can not be right when it claims that even Sagun Brahman is sublated. Svetasvatara Upanishad seems to suggest that Brahman is both with and without form and quote 1 describes a Person and not non-dual Brahman.

********************************************************************************************************************
1.I know this great Person who is resplendent like the sun and is beyond darkness. By knowing him alone one transcends death; there is no other path to go by. (Sv. Up 3.8)

2. By this Person is filled up all this, in relation to whom there is nothing superior or inferior, in comparison with whom there is nothing smaller nor greater, and who exists ALONE in His own effulgent glory, unmoving like a tree. (Sv. Up 3.9)

3. That which is higher than that superior (cause of the world) is without FORM and without disease. Those who know This, they become immortal, while others get only sorrow. (Sv Up 3.10)

4. He who has all the faces, heads and necks, who resides in the intellects of all beings and is all-pervasive, is the Lord (Bhagavan) and therfore the omniscient Siva. (Sv Up 3.11)

5.The Purusa is, indeed, all this that grows through food, and what was and will be. Besides, He is the ordainer of immortality. (Sv Up 3.15)

6. It has hands and feet everywhere, and eyes, heads and faces everywhere, and I
t is possessed of ears everywhere. It exists among all the creatures, pervading
all. (Sv Up 3.16)

7. He is without hands and feet, (and yet) moves and grasps; He sees, (though) without eyes; He hears (though) without ears. He knows whatever is to be known, and of Him there is no knower. They speak of Him as the first, the Supreme Person (Purusham mahantam). (Sv Up 3.19)

8.That indeed is fire, That is the sun, That is air, and That is the moon; That indeed is pure, That is Brahman, That is water, and That is Prajapati. (Sv Up 4.2)

9. You are the woman, You are the man, You are the boy, (and) You are the girl too. You are the old man tottering with a stick. Taking birth, You have Your faces everywhere. (Sv Up 4.3)

10. You, indeed, are the blue bee; You indeed are the green parrot having red eyes
; You indeed are possessed of lightning in Your womb. You indeed are the seasons and the seas. You indeed are without beginning; You exist as the Omnipresent, from whom have sprung all the worlds. (Sv Up 4.4)

01-26-2005, 01:54 AM

Sunder, The "asti" versus "asmi" difference in the mahvakya "aham brahmasmi" was a nice one.

Gangajal,

Let me throw in a view from Kashmir Shaivism:

People have a hard time explaining the 'Jivanmukta' state. A person while living in body, performing all his worldly functions, but 'mukta' or liberated, merged in the supreme consciousness is called 'Jivanmukta' (emancipated while living).

It is natural for people to have some doubts about the 'mukta' state of a person if he/she still appears to be in body etc.

But many saints, do appear to be in both the worlds so to speak. Even Shri Ramakrishna was reportedly asked by Mother Kali, to not get lost in mukti, but be at the 'border state' where both supreme and worldly consciousness can simultaneously be kept.

But if we follow advaita, such a jivanmukta state is hard to explain. You are either in the realm of multiplicity of maya or in the realm of unity of brahman. You can't be in both simultaneously.

Kashmir shaivism mentions a mechanism which would explain this state while not violating the advaitic basics.

There an oscillatory consciousness of special type is mentioned. In one phase of the oscillation, the person is in 'unity' consciousness, while in the other phase he/she is in the 'worldly' consciousness of multiplicity. So, although strictly speaking that person is never in both these states simultaneously, but due to this 'oscillatory' consciousness, for all practical purposes he/she is. One moment aware of the world, next merged in the absolute, repitetively.

I thought this was an ingenious explanation, evidently grounded in meditative experience.

It is like an oscillatory flow of consciousness along the upside down ashwattha tree, root of which is brahman, and branches other beings. This allows the consciousness to reach the root in one phase, while drop down to many branches in the next.

This may be one way how 'Narayana' could be explained from within advaita. Narayana can be the universal consciousness/being with an oscillatory consciousness, which in one phase is conscious of the root (unity of the brahman), and in next phase conscious of ALL the branches (whole multiplicity of the jivas).

01-26-2005, 02:26 AM

In further support of this view of 'Narayana':

1. brahmi-shakti is the creative aspect, when world evolves from the unity towards the multiplicity, consciousness proceeding from root to the branches.
2. Raudri-shakti is the destructive aspect, from multiplicity to unity, consciousness moving from branches to the root.
3. vaishnavi-shakti is the maintenance aspect, neither moving up nor down, but as argued above, oscillating between the two, a balance between creation and destruction.

Sunder · 01-26-2005, 02:56 AM

QUOTEYes, Brahman is ALL but the problem is that we do not see Brahman but only the multiplicity.
I would like to rephrase it as "Yes, Brahman is all. Brahman alone 'sees' the multiplicity, we cannot know of a multiplicity without Brahman." (Reminds me of the story from Kenopanishad - Thrutheeya Valli.)

QUOTEAdvaita view on the other hand can not be right when it claims that even Sagun Brahman is sublated. Svetasvatara Upanishad seems to suggest that Brahman is both with and without form and quote 1 describes a Person and not non-dual Brahman.
Here, it would be beneficial to take a break and discuss what exactly the GUNA mean in saguna or nirguna. Is Guna the 'attribute' or 'quality' of Brahman?

Here I will post a small definition of Vaisheshika's definition of Gunas.

Kanadha Vaisheshika talks about 16 different padharthas (objects). Of these seven categories of Reality are dravya (substance), guna (quality), karma (action), samanya (generality), visesha (uniqueness), samavaya (inherence) and abhava (non-existence).

Kanadha explains Guna, cannot exist by itself but exists only in a substance. This it cannot, be the constituent or material cause of anything's existence.

[quote]The 24 gunas are rupa (color), rasa (taste), gandha (smell), sparasa (touch), sabda (sound), samkhya (number), parimana (magnitude), prthaktva (distinctiveness), samyoga (conjunction or nearness), buddhi (cognition), saukha (pleasure), dukha (pain), iccha (desire), dvesa (aversion), prayatna (effort), gurutva (heaviness), dravatva (fluidity), sneha (viscidity), samskara (tendency), dharma (orderliness), and adharma (chaos or anomaly).

For the rest of the amazing discussion of Kanadha refer to the link.

Here is a link on it.
http://www.esamskriti.com/html/new_inside....id=123&count1=2

Now, the Gunas (as described above), or the three Gunas (Satva, Rajas, Thamas) can only linger on to a 'substance'. If the Very same Brahman is Saguna, and Nirguna, then it contradicts the nature of Brahman's uniformity. What portion of it is saguna, and what portion is nirguna?

Also, the word 'GUNA-ATHEETHA' becomes meaningless if Brahman is not fully devoid of Gunas.

PS: I have an objection to the word, 'Brahman is Saguna and nirguna at the same time'. For, Brahman is beyond Time and causation, there cannot be a concept of SAME, or TIME. This is known from meditating on it.

gangajal · 01-26-2005, 05:09 AM

QUOTE(Sunder @ Jan 26 2005, 02:56 AM) ]Now, the Gunas (as described above), or the three Gunas (Satva, Rajas, Thamas) can only linger on to a 'substance'. If the Very same Brahman is Saguna, and Nirguna, then it contradicts the nature of Brahman's uniformity. What portion of it is saguna, and what portion is nirguna?

Also, the word 'GUNA-ATHEETHA' becomes meaningless if Brahman is not fully devoid of Gunas.

PS: I have an objection to the word, 'Brahman is Saguna and nirguna at the same time'. For, Brahman is beyond Time and causation, there cannot be a concept of SAME, or TIME. This is known from meditating on it. 
Sundarji,

What you have written is the classic Kevala Advaita philosophical
position. Ramakrishna Advaita which I follow differs from the classic
Advaita position. Ramakrishna Advaita says that there is a step further than
a Jnani which it calls Vijnani. The state of Vijnana is described in Gita 7.2

:Jnanam teham SAVIJNANAM idam vaksyamy asesatah
yaj jnatva neha bhuyonyaj jnatavyam avasisyate

(I shall now declare to you in fullness that knowledge (Jnana) along with
Special Knowledge (Vijnana: its higher development), by means of which there
will remain nothing more for you to understand. (Gita 7.2))

Kevala Advaita philosophical position is from the standpoint of a Jnani.
That is not, however, the last word at least according to Ramakrishna Advaita.
The last and highest word is from the point of view of the Vijnani as given in
Gita 7.2.

Ramakrishna Advaita does accept that Brahman is beyond vidya and avidya,
knowledge and ignorance. It is beyond maya, the illusion of duality. What
Brahman is cannot be described. All things in the world - the Vedas, the
Puranas, the Tantras, the six systems of philosophy - have been defiled, like
food that has been touched by the tongue. Only one thing has not been defiled
in this way, and that is Brahman. No one has ever been able to say what
Brahman is. Brahman is beyond word and thought. It is said in the Vedas that
Brahman is of the nature of Bliss. It is Satchidananda. In Samadhi one attains
the knowledge of Brahman - one realizes Brahman. In that state reasoning stops
altogether, and man becomes mute. He has no power to describe the nature of
Brahman. Brahman alone is real and the world is illusory - is philosophical
reasoning. This is an extremely difficult path. To one who follows it even the
divine play in the world becomes like a dream and appears unreal; his 'I' also
vanishes.
The jnani gives up his identification with worldly things,
discriminating, 'Not this, not this!' Only then can he realize Brahman. It is
like leaving the roof of a house by leaving the steps behind, one by one. But
the Vijnani, who is more intimately acquainted with Brahman, realizes something
more. He realizes that the steps are made of the same materials as the roof:
bricks, lime, and the brick-dust. That which is realized intuitively as
Brahman through the eliminating process of 'Not this, not this' is then found
to have become the universe and all its living beings. The Vijnani sees that
the Reality which is nirguna, without attributes, is also saguna with
attributes.
A man can not live on the roof a long time. He comes down again. Those
who realize Brahman in samadhi comes down also and find that it is Brahman
that has become the universe and its living beings. In the musical scale there
are the notes sa, re, ga, ma, pa, dha, and ni; but one cannot keep one's
voice on 'ni' a long time. The ego does not vanish altogether. The man coming
down from samadhi perceives that it is Brahman that has become the ego, the
universe, and all living beings. That is known as Vijnana.
The vijnani sees that Brahman is immovable and actionless like Mount
Sumeru. This universe consists of three gunas - sattva, rajas, and tamas. They
are in Brahman. But Brahman is unattached. (Gunatita does NOT mean that the
Gunas are not in Brahman. It means that Gunas do not affect Brahman.) The
Vijnani further sees that what is Brahman is the Bhagavan, the Personal God.
He who is beyond the three gunas is the Bhagavan with His six supernatural
powers. Living beings, the universe, mind, intelligence, love, renunciation,
knowledge - all these are the manifestations of His power. Bhagavan or Saguna Brahman
can not be sublated since Bhagavan is also Brahman. A Jnani thinks Saguna Brahman
is sublated because a Jnani has not yet reached the final step, i.e. the position of a Vijnani.
Why does Brahman appear as Bhagavan? Brahman alone is real and the
world is illusory - that is reasoning - is a very difficult path. To one who
follows it even the divine play in the world becomes like a dream and appears
unreal; his 'I' also vanishes. The followers of this path do not accept the
Divine Incarnation. It is a very difficult path.
That is why Brahman as Bhagavan incarnates Himself as a man and
teaches people the path of devotion. He exhorts people to cultivate self-
surrender to God. Following the path of devotion, one realizes everything
through His grace - both knowledge and Supreme Wisdom.

****************************************************************
Sometime ago we had a discussion about whether bhaktas need the Advaita
experience. I found this interesting conversation below which suggests that
Sri Ramakrishna thinks the Advaita experience is not necessary for bhaktas.
****************************************************************

Mahima:"I have a question to ask sir. A lover of God needs Nirvana (total
annihilation of ego -- the ideal of the jnani) some time or other, doesn't
he?

Sri Ramakrishna:"It can't be said that bhaktas need Nirvana. According to some
schools there is an eternal Krishna and there are His eternal devotees.
Krishna is spirit embodied, and His abode is also spirit embodied. Krishna is
eternal and His devotees are also eternal."

- Sri Ramakrishna

P.S. All I would like to say is that Brahman is both Saguna and Nirguna.

01-26-2005, 06:08 AM

QUOTEThe Vijnani sees that
the Reality which is nirguna, without attributes, is also saguna with
attributes.

As I am sure all debaters here are aware, in advaita, nirguna and saguna aspects are kept at different levels of reality with nirguna being the higher reality as compared to saguna. Sagun can be subrated by a higher knowledge, while nirguna can't.

If one uses the same word 'reality' to describe both of them without any qualifications, one runs the risk of confusing the issue.

The main contention of Gangajal appears to be that saguna brahman can't be subrated by any higher knowledge. So saguna and nirguna both should be taken as real simultaneously.

I think this is a slippery argument. The reason is that 'guna' or attribute per se requires an observer that observes the 'guna'. Attributes are assigned to any object by an observer through an observation. Without such an observation or observer there is no meaning of an attribute. If If the observer can observe an object with attributes, it must see it different from itself. The difference between the observer self and observed object with attributes remains. So it seems it is possible to separate a deeper observer self from any 'saguna' self.

If we assume ourselves to be something which has attributes, such our body, personality or ego etc., then we can always separate a deeper observer within which stands behind and observes the supposed self. Any supposed self with attributes can be observed by a deeper self as an object. For exmaple, we may complain if someone hurts our finger by retorting 'don't hurt me'. But this identification of 'me' with the 'finger' can be subrated. If we accidentally lose a finger, our idea of 'I' doesn't vanish away with the finger. 'I' remains. This same process can be applied to any idea of our self that we can come up with. Each new ideas of 'I' has some attributes. But that very fact makes them objects for a deeper observer. So even if temporarily we identify with a self with certain attributes, it is always possible to go deeper within and see the real 'self' standing apart from that particular supposed self.

This process can be carried indefinitely. The true Atma (self) is defined as the limit of this process. Note that it is conceptually easy to define the limiting process and the limit, but can we say with any definiteness that before the limit is reached there is a certain 'saguna' self that is very special? I don't think so. There is a whole sequence of 'saguna' selves, that can be progressively subrated. But it is hard to say that we should stop at a certain 'saguna' stage and call it something special. Only stage that can clearly be indicated is the limit, the 'nirguna' self.

Now regarding the identity of 'self' and 'brahman' a lot can be said, but I will make a few comments only.

From the viewpoint of beings living in the world of maya, we can only talk in terms of attributes. So at any time we can only indicate something 'saguna'. But the claim is that we can also define a limiting process that indicates the nirguna in terms of a sequence of sagunas. Merely for this purpose a 'saguna brahman' is proposed as sat-chit-ananda. The three 'attributes of sat(existence), chit (consciouness) and annda (bliss) are used to indicate the direction of the limiting process. The direction in which sat,chit and anada increase progressively is the direction towards nirguna brahman. But it is not possible to stop at a certain level of sat, chit and anada and say this is a special entry in the sequence called 'saguna brahman'.

When an individual through self analysis manages to come face to face with his deepest self, then wht would one see? Note as we go deeper and deeper we progressively negate/subrate our ideas of self with certain attributes. Whenever we think we are someone with certain attributes, we can always sink a bit deeper and observe that supposed self as an object making ourselves separate from it. The limit to this process is a self without any attributes.

This self without any attributes can not be distinguished from the deepest self observed by any person through the same process. The reason being that distinctions are made through the attributes. If two individuals go through this process and reach their deepest selves, they would not be able to distinguish those selves from each other. Thats why vedanta maintains that the deepest self is one for whole of the universe.
1. There is no second, therefore no fear, therefore the deepest self is anandamaya (ananda).
2. No one can say 'I don't exist'. Otherwise who made that statement? Self is self-existent. (sat)
3. Self is defined as the deepest observer within, so consciousness (chit)

In this sense the deepest self or Atma is unique, one in whole universe and can be described in terms of gunas as sat-chit-ananda. So Atma and Brahman are same.

But this description in terms of gunas is only for demonstartion. The limiting process leads to identity of Atma with Nirguna brahman.

In short, I believe any saguna self or brahman can be subrated further. So both saguna and nirguna brahman can't be equally real.

Sunder · (This post was last modified: 01-26-2005, 06:21 AM by Sunder.)

QUOTE(gangajal @ Jan 26 2005, 05:09 AM) P.S. All I would like to say is that Brahman is both Saguna and Nirguna. 
to whom?

PS: I enjoyed the rest of the post, and shall reply it at leisure, once I get home.. <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

added later:

PPS: With all due respects Gangajal ji. When you asked me to leave Vidyaranya's definition at the doorstep as it is not acceptable to Ramanujacharya, I agreed with you. Now you bring in definitions of Sri Ramakrishna. This would not be acceptable arguments as Vedantic discussions are based on the Shruthi and Smrithi, and Brahmasutra. If Sri Ramakrishna's statements are Pramana - based on his experience, then Sri Vidhyaranya Swami, and Sri Ramana Maharshi's teachings will be equally applicable as a counter.

Thus I propose we stick to Prasthana Thraya.

01-26-2005, 06:31 AM

Also if the saguna brahman can not be subrated, then how could one even reach nirguna brahman? And what is the need for the nirguna brahman for the theory? It seems saguna brahman would do just fine?

According to Gangajal, in vishistadvaita, one has the equation:

brahman = narayana + jiva + jagat

I think Narayana is being called the saguna-brahman here. But I don't think adding saguna brahman, saguna jivas and saguna jagat could ever produce a nirguna brahman. So brahman on the left side of the equation must be something saguna too.

Actually at this moment, this equation is thoroughly confusing for me. Hopefully Gangajal would clarify further the relationship between brahman on the left side and narayana on the right side..

01-26-2005, 06:49 AM

Gangajalji,
QUOTEbrahman = narayana + jiva + jagat

Or is it naryana +jiva + jagat does not exist independent of Brahman?

Limit Narayana +jiva +jagat = Brahman?
Perception --> end of Maya

(i.e as Sundar ji said, scope limitation. )

Does Ramanujacharya goes and says that there is no nirguna brahman which is beyond (Narayana + jiva + Jagat) or does he restrict his explanation of Shruti and smriti to (Narayana + jiva + jagat). Did Ramanuja ever claim what he said is *the truth* and nothing else is or his sishyakotigal infer it has *the truth*. I infer that Ramanujacharya never talked about Vishitadvaita and only his sisyakotigal like Vedanta desikan coined the name. I remember reading that Vedanta desika as a contemporary and a friend of Vidyaranya.

BTW,
Here is a sloka on Sriman Narayanan to contemplate,

Naaraayana Stothram
Naraayana Naraayana Naraayana Om
Naraayana Naraayana Naraayana Om
Naraayana Om! Naraayana Om!!

Namaateetam Nadaateetam Naa-rangam Om
Naa-ateetam Naa-anaagatam Nabhi-padmam Om
Nabhi-padmam om! Nabhi-padmam om!! (1)

Naraayana Naraayana Naraayana Om
Naraayana Naraayana Naraayana Om
Naraayana Om! Naraayana Om!!

Rajyaateetam Raagateetam Rupateetam Om
Radhateetam Rasaateetam Raasa-leelam Om
Raasa-leelam Om! Raasa-leelam Om!! (2)

Naraayana Naraayana Naraayana Om
Naraayana Naraayana Naraayana Om
Naraayana Om! Naraayana Om!!

Yamaateetam Yasaateetam Yaadaateetam Om
Yagnyaateetam Yogaateetam Yoga-bindum Om
Yoga-bindum Om! Yoga-bindum Om!! (3)

Naraayana Naraayana Naraayana Om
Naraayana Naraayana Naraayana Om
Naraayana Om! Naraayana Om!!

Naa-sthiraam Naa-chalaam Naa-ashraayam Om
Niranjanam Nirmalam Nirantharam Om
Nirantharam Om! Nirantharam Om!!

Naraayana Naraayana Naraayana Om
Naraayana Naraayana Naraayana Om
Naraayana Om! Naraayana Om!!

Sunder · 01-26-2005, 11:25 AM

QUOTEWhat you have written is the classic Kevala Advaita philosophical position. Ramakrishna Advaita which I follow differs from the classic Advaita position. Ramakrishna Advaita says that there is a step further than a Jnani which it calls Vijnani. The state of Vijnana is described in Gita 7.2

:Jnanam teham SAVIJNANAM idam vaksyamy asesatah
yaj jnatva neha bhuyonyaj jnatavyam avasisyate

As far as we know, there is only One Advaita. There cannot be two or ten advaitas. There are different view points, and those who know 'it' speak of it in different terminologies. As I had mentioned earlier, the term Ramakrishna-Advaita confuses me. How can Advaita itself be branded as Muniyandi-Advaita or Iyyanar-Advaita? It does not sound right.

I am fully aware of Thothapuri's interaction with Sri Ramakrishna. I am aware and agree with Sri Ramakrishna's examples of "form and formless" for even the Vishnu Sahasranamam mentions 'Anur Brihad Krusha Sthoola Gunabrin Nirguno Mahaan.' He is atomic, cosmic, subtle, gross, qualified, unqualified, and great.. But here, we maintain that SaGuna is Nirguna seen thru the veil of gunas and Saguna is always for the sake of someone ELSE (i.e. Bhaktha), and thus Saguna is limited, while the Nirguna aspect is Truly independent of time, space, and cause. Hence Sri Lalitha Tripurasundari is called "Ekaakini bhoomaroopA nirdvaitA dvaitavarjita". 

In our discussion, we should stick to Shruthi Pramana. Here, we are asking for Shruthi Pramanas for a simple reason. If I were to take Sri Ramakrishna's definition as a Pramana without backing from Shruthi/Smrithi, then we are begging upon someone's first-person experience as opposed to relying on the Vedas which are the Shabdham (the APAURUSHEYA - "Word of God".) [I know I am using the xtian cliche for Shabdham, and it's time we reclaim the phrase back like we claim back the Swastika.]

QUOTEThe jnani gives up his identification with worldly things, discriminating, 'Not this, not this!' Only then can he realize Brahman. It is like leaving the roof of a house by leaving the steps behind, one by one. But the Vijnani, who is more intimately acquainted with Brahman, realizes something more. He realizes that the steps are made of the same materials as the roof: bricks, lime, and the brick-dust. That which is realized intuitively as Brahman through the eliminating process of 'Not this, not this' is then found to have become the universe and all its living beings. The Vijnani sees that the Reality which is nirguna, without attributes, is also saguna with attributes.
What you call Vignani is what an Advaitin calls Brahmagnani or Gnani for short. Chandogya upanishad says Vignana (experience) is higher than Dhyana (contemplation), but BHALAM is higher than Vignana, as a bhalavaan can shake up a 100 vignanis. "Balam vava vijnanad-bhuyah api ha satam vijnanavatam eko balavan akampayate" (http://swami-krishnananda.org/chhand/ch_3b.html#8)

QUOTEThis universe consists of three gunas - sattva, rajas, and tamas. They are in Brahman. But Brahman is unattached. (Gunatita does NOT mean that the Gunas are not in Brahman. It means that Gunas do not affect Brahman.)
Is this three gunas in Maya (Prakrithi) or in Brahman? For Samkhya says 'Prakrithi consists of three Gunas.' Purusha does not have Gunas. I quote:

QUOTEPrakrithi is neither atomic substance nor consciousness, but it possesses the three gunas of sattva, rajas and tamas. They are not the qualities but the intrinsic nature of Prakrithi. The balanced nature of sattva, rajas and tamas is Prakrithi and thus they cannot be Prakrithi attribute's or qualities. They are called gunas i.e. ropes because they are intertwined like three strands of a rope that bind the soul to the world. According to Samkhya philosophy, sattva, rajas and tamas are the root causes from which the universe is derived. These gunas cannot be perceived but can only be inferred. 

Thus Saguna is Brahman when He identifies Himself with the Gunas, and is by His own nature a Nirguni. Hence Advaita maintains the reflection concept. Brahman when reflected on Maya (Shuddha Sattva) is Ishvara or Narayana, and the very same Brahman, when reflected on Avidya (Ashuddha Sattva) is Jeeva. (Ishvara controls Maya, whlie Jeeva is in control of Avidya.)

Thus, whenever you mention Saguna, it is the reflection of NIRGUNA which associates itself with Gunas. It does not HAVE the Gunas. A guna cannot be HAD and DROPPED voluntariliy.

QUOTEP.S. All I would like to say is that Brahman is both Saguna and Nirguna.
"What color is the sky ?", asked the teacher.
A tiny hand shot up. "Blue", said the boy.
"No," said the little girl, "the sky is really black. We see it as blue."
The teacher smiled and gave each a candy.
She then looked up at the sky, which was a vast expanse of Space. It was neither black, nor blue, not had any colors it could call its own.

gangajal · 01-27-2005, 01:06 AM

QUOTE(Ashok Kumar @ Jan 26 2005, 06:31 AM) Also if the saguna brahman can not be subrated, then how could one even reach nirguna brahman?Â And what is the need for the nirguna brahman for the theory?Â It seems saguna brahman would do just fine?

According to Gangajal, in vishistadvaita, one has the equation:

brahman = narayana + jiva + jagat

I think Narayana is being called the saguna-brahman here.Â But I don't think adding saguna brahman, saguna jivas and saguna jagat could ever produce a nirguna brahman.Â So brahman on the left side of the equation must be something saguna too.

Actually at this moment, this equation is thoroughly confusing for me.Â Hopefully Gangajal would clarify further the relationship between brahman on the left side and narayana on the right side.. 
I am impressed by lot of responses. Let me first answer these questions by Ashok Kumar. Both Nirguna and Saguna Brahman have to be there because both are experienced. The Upanishads mention them because obviously they have been experienced. So any theory has to account both.

So now the question is if saguna Brahman can not be sublated then how can Nirguna Brahman be reached? Yes, it is true that in Nirvikalpa Samadhi one looses one's I-ness and hence there is no observer to observe any attribute. This does not mean that Saguna Brahman has been sublated. It is like water is formless in certain temperature range while it is with form, ice, in another temperature range. Just because ice melts beyond a certain temperature does not mean that ice has been sublated. Bhaktas experience bhava samadhi where they do not experience Nirguna Brahman and only experience Saguna Brahman. Does that mean that Nirguna Brahman is nonexistent? Just as water appears to be formless or with form depending on the temperature, Brahman appears as Nirguna when a person's I disappears during Nirvikalpa Samadhi while the same Brahman appears as Saguna when the person's I is present. Saguna and Nirguna Brahman are merely two different aspects of the same Reality.

I give below these 2 quotes from Svetasvatara. Up to back up the point I am making. . The Rishi is saying in 3.8 that knowing that knowing the great Person is the ONLY way to transcend death. Then in 3.10 the same Rishi is saying that the only by knowing the formless one can become immortal. 3.8 is for the person who traverses the path of Bhakti while 3.10 is for the Jnani.

******************************************************************************************************************
I know this great Person who is resplendent like the sun and is beyond darknesss. By knowing him alone one transcends death; there is no other path to go by. (Sv. Up 3.8)

That which is higher than that superior (cause of the world) is without FORM
and without disease. Those who know This, they become immortal, while others get
only sorrow. (Sv Up 3.10)

******************************************************************************************************************

I give below 2 more quotes. 3.16 and 3.19 are apparently quite contradictory. Surely one thing can not both have hands and feet everywhere and be without hands and feet. This apparent contradictory stance is forced on the Rishi because Brahman is both Nirguna and Saguna.
******************************************************************************************************
It has hands and feet everywhere, and eyes, heads and faces everywhere, and I
t is possessed of ears everywhere. It exists among all the creatures, pervading
all. (Sv Up 3.16)

He is without hands and feet, (and yet) moves and grasps; He sees, (though) w
ithout eyes; He hears (though) without ears. He knows ehatever is to be known, a
nd of Him there is no knower. They speak of Him as the first, the Supreme Person
(Purusham mahantam). (Sv Up 3.19)

***********************************************************************************************************

Now let me discuss the equation Brahman=Narayana+Jiva+Jagat. Yes, Brahman is Saguna here since Ramanujacharya can not accept the concept of Nriguna Brahman. Look at the equation and you will see that Jiva and Jagat form the body of Brahman. Since Ramanuja's Brahman has to have a body he can not acknowledge Nirguna Brahman since body would become an attribute of such a Brahman..

gangajal · 01-27-2005, 01:15 AM

QUOTE(sridhar k @ Jan 26 2005, 06:49 AM) Gangajalji,
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTEbrahman = narayana + jiva + jagat

Or is it naryana +jiva + jagat does not exist independent of Brahman?

Limit Narayana +jiva +jagat = Brahman?
Perception --> end of Maya

(i.e as Sundar ji said, scope limitation. )

Does Ramanujacharya goes and says that there is no nirguna brahman which is beyond (Narayana + jiva + Jagat) or does he restrict his explanation of Shruti and smriti to (Narayana + jiva + jagat). Did Ramanuja ever claim what he said is *the truth* and nothing else is or his sishyakotigal infer it has *the truth*. I infer that Ramanujacharya never talked about Vishitadvaita and only his sisyakotigal like Vedanta desikan coined the name. I remember reading that Vedanta desika as a contemporary and a friend of Vidyaranya </div>
Sridhar ji,
Ramanuja is saying that Brahman is Narayana plus Jiva plus Jagat. Jiva and Jagat form the body of Brahman while Narayana is the Self. You can think of Narayana as the super-Atman while we and the inert nature form the body of Brahman. No limit is being proposed.
Yes, Ramanuja indulges in a long polemics rejecting nirguna Brahman at least as Advaitists understand it. Nirguna means devoid of all bad qualities for Ramanuja. Ramanuja says that attributeless things are not part of anyone's experience and even scripture cannot override this simple and plain fact.
Ramanuja does not talk of Vishistadvaita. Ramanuja is only talking about Vedanta. Yes, Ramanuja surely thinks that his position is the true position.

gangajal · 01-27-2005, 01:29 AM

QUOTE(Sunder @ Jan 26 2005, 06:12 AM) <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gangajal @ Jan 26 2005, 05:09 AM) P.S. All I would like to say is that Brahman is both Saguna and Nirguna. 
to whom?

</div>
Brahman appears as saguna to a person who retains his ego while is experienced as Nriguna to a person who has lost his ego.

Sundar ji,
I did not bring in Sri Ramakrishna's position with the intention of arguing with you. I just wanted to state my position that Brahman being infinite must be both Saguna and Nirguna. Otherwise Brahman's infinitude will suffer.

gangajal · 01-27-2005, 02:34 AM

QUOTE(Sunder @ Jan 26 2005, 11:25 AM) As far as we know, there is only One Advaita. There cannot be two or ten advaitas. There are different view points, and those who know 'it' speak of it in different terminologies. As I had mentioned earlier, the term Ramakrishna-Advaita confuses me. How can Advaita itself be branded as Muniyandi-Advaita or Iyyanar-Advaita? It does not sound right.

I am fully aware of Thothapuri's interaction with Sri Ramakrishna. I am aware and agree with Sri Ramakrishna's examples of "form and formless" for even the Vishnu Sahasranamam mentions 'Anur Brihad Krusha Sthoola Gunabrin Nirguno Mahaan.' He is atomic, cosmic, subtle, gross, qualified, unqualified, and great.. But here, we maintain that SaGuna is Nirguna seen thru the veil of gunas and Saguna is always for the sake of someone ELSE (i.e. Bhaktha), and thus Saguna is limited, while the Nirguna aspect is Truly independent of time, space, and cause. Hence Sri Lalitha Tripurasundari is called "Ekaakini bhoomaroopA nirdvaitA dvaitavarjita". 


Sundar ji,
1. Ramakrishna's system is indeed recognised by scholars. They call it neo-Vedanta. I do not like it since there is nothing new about Vedanta. So I will call it Ramakrishna system from now on.

2. Nirguna aspect is experienced by a person who has no ego while Saguna aspect is experienced by a person through the ego. Time exists as long as one retains an ego. There is no time when there is no ego. It is like water is formless at certain range of temperature while it is ice at another rnage. Can you claim that water is superior to ice or ice is superior to water? Similarly Saguna Brahman is one aspect while Nirguna Brahman is another aspect of the same reality. Yes, the Advaita experience is considered higher than the dvaita experience because it is very difficult for embodied beings to think of the formless. I give below some Gita quotes to show my point. There are numerous ways to know. Gita 12.5 clearly says that it is difficult for embodied beings to reach the Impersonal Absolute.
***************************************************************************************************************
Those I consider as the most perfect in Yoga, who with their minds fixed
intently on Me in steadfast love, worship Me with absolute faith. (Gita 12.2)

Those who are devoted to the Imperishable (the Impersonal Absolute) - who is
the firm support of the world and is also undefinable, unmanifested,
transcendent, motionless, and all-pervading - even they reach me alone,
striving with their senses controlled, and with mind tranquillised and set
on the welfare of all. (Gita 12.3-4)

The obstacles facing those devoted to the Impersonal Absolute are far greater;
for the way of an unclear ideal is difficult for an embodied being to
understand and follow. (Gita 12.5)

But, O son of Prtha, soon will I lift from this ocean of death-bound wordly
existence, those whose minds are ever set on Me - those who abandon to Me
the fruits of all their actions together with the sense of agency thereof,
and who worship Me, meditating on Me as their sole refuge and their only
love. (Gita 12.6-7)

Fix your mind on Me alone; let your reason penetrate into Me; without doubt
you will then abide in Me alone for ever more. (Gita 12.8)

If you are unable to fix your mind steadily on Me (even at the start) then try
to reach Me through the sytematic practice of concentration. (Gita 12.9)

If you are not capable of practising systematic concentration, then devote
yourself wholeheartedly to works service to Me (consisting in external worship
and discharge of duties for My sake). Thus working for Me, man can attain
to perfection. (Gita 12.10)

If even this is difficult for you to perform, then taking refuge in Me
and then controlling the mind, give up the fruits of all your actions
(recognising Me as their agent and enjoyer).(Gita 12.11)

Then (a mere formal) practice of disciplines, a clear understanding (of the
doctrine) is better. Than such understanding, meditation is better. Even
better than meditation is the abandonment of the fruits of action. For such
abandonment (of the fruits of work and sense of their agency) is immediately
followed by peace. (Gita 12.12)

******************************************************************************************************

I will comment on the rest of your post after this.

gangajal · 01-27-2005, 02:50 AM

QUOTE(Sunder @ Jan 26 2005, 11:25 AM) In our discussion, we should stick to Shruthi Pramana. Here, we are asking for Shruthi Pramanas for a simple reason. If I were to take Sri Ramakrishna's definition as a Pramana without backing from Shruthi/Smrithi, then we are begging upon someone's first-person experience as opposed to relying on the Vedas which are the Shabdham (the APAURUSHEYA - "Word of God".) [I know I am using the xtian cliche for Shabdham, and it's time we reclaim the phrase back like we claim back the Swastika.]

What you call Vignani is what an Advaitin calls Brahmagnani or Gnani for short. Chandogya upanishad says Vignana (experience) is higher than Dhyana (contemplation), but BHALAM is higher than Vignana, as a bhalavaan can shake up a 100 vignanis. "Balam vava vijnanad-bhuyah api ha satam vijnanavatam eko balavan akampayate" (http://swami-krishnananda.org/chhand/ch_3b.html#8)


Sundar ji,

1. It is reasonable to assume that all the Acharyas interpreted the shastras according to their own experience. So first person experience can not be avoided. Nevertheless you are absolutely right that scriptural evidence should be provided.

2. I do not think a Brahmajnani and a Vijnani are same conceptually. Correct me if I am wrong but a Brahmajnani considers the world and Sagun Brahman to be unreal or mithya. A Vijnani according to Ramakrishna's concept accepts Nirguna Brahman, Saguna Brahman, Jiva and Jagat as all real. A Vijnani sees that Brahman has become all this. A Vijnani's position closely resembles the position of the Rishi of Svetasvatara Upanishad when he says that Brahman is the boy, the girl, the old man, the blue bee, the green Parrot etc. A Brahmajnani does not accept Maya shakti as real but as anirvachaniya. A Vijnani accepts shakti as Brahman. A Vijnani finds that Maya shakti and Brahman are inseparable as seen from the following quote from Sri Ramakrishna:

Brahman and Sakti are inseparable. Unless you accept Sakti, you will find
the universe unreal - 'I', 'you', house, buildings, and family. The world
stands solid because the Primordial Energy stands behind it. If there is no
supporting pole, no framework can be made, and without the framework there
can be no beautiful image of Durga.

After attaining Perfect knowledge one realizes that they are not different.
They are the same, like the gem and its brilliance. Thinking of the gem, one
cannot but think of its brilliance. Again they are like the milk and its
whiteness. Thinking of the one, you must think of the other. But you cannot
realize this non-duality before the attainment of Perfect Knowledge.
Attaining Perfect Knowledge one goes into Samadhi, beyond the twentyfour
cosmic principles. Therefore the principle of 'I' does not exist in that
state. A man can not describe in words what he feels in samadhi. Coming
down, he can give just a hint about it. I come down a hundred cubits, as it
were, when I say 'OM' after samadhi. Brahman is beyond the injunction of the
Vedas and can not be described. There neither 'I' nor "you" exists.

- Sri Ramakrishna
I will reply the rest after this post.

gangajal · 01-27-2005, 03:01 AM

QUOTE(Sunder @ Jan 26 2005, 11:25 AM) Is this three gunas in Maya (Prakrithi) or in Brahman?
Thus Saguna is Brahman when He identifies Himself with the Gunas, and is by His own nature a Nirguni. Hence Advaita maintains the reflection concept. Brahman when reflected on Maya (Shuddha Sattva) is Ishvara or Narayana, and the very same Brahman, when reflected on Avidya (Ashuddha Sattva) is Jeeva. (Ishvara controls Maya, whlie Jeeva is in control of Avidya.)
Thus, whenever you mention Saguna, it is the reflection of NIRGUNA which associates itself with Gunas. It does not HAVE the Gunas. A guna cannot be HAD and DROPPED voluntariliy.

"What color is the sky ?", asked the teacher.
A tiny hand shot up. "Blue", said the boy.
"No," said the little girl, "the sky is really black. We see it as blue."
The teacher smiled and gave each a candy.
She then looked up at the sky, which was a vast expanse of Space. It was neither black, nor blue, not had any colors it could call its own. 
Sundar ji,

1. You have asked a significant question about where the Gunas are, in Maya or Brahman? Let me ask you a question about this. If Brahman is ALL, as you admit, then can there be a separate Maya or Prakriti for Gunas to reside in? You have given the Panchadasi's defintion of Ishwar and Jiva. The only point is whether Gunas are outside or inside Brahman. If they are outside then you are saying that Brahman is NOT all.

2. I would say that the boy, the girl and the teacher are all right from different points of view.

01-27-2005, 03:27 AM

QUOTEIt is like water is formless at certain range of temperature while it is ice at another rnage. Can you claim that water is superior to ice or ice is superior to water

I guess the kevala advaita claim is that ICE (iswara) is unreal and only water(Brahman) is real. Temperature(Maya) shows the Water (BRAHMAN) as ICE (Iswara).

Gangajalji,
I am getting what you have been saying all along. I will put it the other way. Since everything is Brahman, even the unreal (maya) is Brahman as nothing exists independent of Brahman. Brahman sans the real and unreal (Rasa atheetham). Brahman transends the reality-unreality paradigm.

QUOTE would say that the boy, the girl and the teacher are all right from different points of view. 

Brahman transcends right or wrong as right are wrong are relative terms within the mayic standpoint.

gangajal · 01-27-2005, 04:15 AM

sridhar ji,
You are absolutely correct.

01-27-2005, 04:22 AM

QUOTESince everything is Brahman, even the unreal (maya) is Brahman as nothing exists independent of Brahman. Brahman sans the real and unreal (Rasa atheetham). Brahman transends the reality-unreality paradigm.

Sridhar, Interesting way to put it. But logically a dangerous minefield.

Let me play a bit. <!--emo& Wink

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' />

I define something called 'non-brahman'. Since brahman according to the quote is 'everything' , is brahman also the non-brahman?

In the quote the words 'unreal' and 'exists' have been used to basically say thet 'unreal exists', which is same as saying 'non-existent exists'. Also 'brahman transcends reality and unreality' can be rephrased as 'reality transcends reality and unreality'.

A statement of form 'A=not A' is known as contradiction in logic. A contradictory statement is taken to be self evidently false. If you take a contradictory statement to be true, you can derive any statement from it.

It may be OK to mystically dwell on a contradiction to go beyond logic per se. Zen does that. But a philosophical theory can't afford to do that.

There are known preils of the use of the phrase 'all' and 'everything'. There are dangers of using the phrases like 'brahman is everything' too loosely too. Consider the statements:

1. Does a set of all sets contain itself?
2. Can an omnipotent defeat itself ?

IMHO such arguments often gives rise to very interesing forms of philosophical systems that are best termed 'Airy-Fairy vaada'.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?