01-26-2005, 06:08 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Vijnani sees that
the Reality which is nirguna, without attributes, is also saguna with
attributes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.
the Reality which is nirguna, without attributes, is also saguna with
attributes.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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.