1. Romani:
In Hindu religion, Parabrahman can mean both Saguna AND Nirguna Brahman. This is left open to the traditional Hindu. It's not just one OR the other. For the individual Hindu's experience and understanding it is "And/Or". For the Hindu religion it is "AND", like it is for Daoism etc.
It was you who unduly stressed (insisted on) the one and started it all off by trying to make Shankara sound like the inventor of an attributeless Brahman and linking his mention of the already-long-established *Hindu* explanation of Nirguna with the entirely unrelated Buddhism. I merely corrected your statements in saying that Shankara was a Hindu as he was but parroting Hindooism on this, that he never even focused purely on the Nirguna (again, he was very Hindoo in his significant focus on Saguna) and that Buddhism is entirely unrelated in such Hindu matters.
I pointed out that Shankara was but a typical Hindoo - of a certain type.
Case in point is my #78 in response to agnivayu's "We are a part and parcel of Brahman" shortly after he had stated "Man makes God in his image, so the idea that God is of only one form is flawed. An Advanced Alien civilization will depict God in their form not like a human":
Correction to your claim: It was you who brought up the "impersonal Brahman without attributes", Advaita (and Shankara) - your posts #55, #63 (and again in #81) to which I responded. And it was me who pointed out that those things *too* were supported by Hindu texts. Of course, Saguna is certainly extremely highly supported as well (something which I also referred to).
In no other way does Nirguna even concern me or most Hindus I know. I don't know how often I need to repeat this.
I have certainly *never* minimised the Gods, though you minimise the plurality of them or the traditional Hindu recognition (through such statements like your question "who is the only worthy to be worshipped") that the Hindu Gods are All variously seen as the Supreme Ultimate - either on their own, with their spouse, in families, or sets of n, or altogether.
(* It's in their interest, because the very topics you ended up leading into has been latched onto elsewhere by Very Unfriendly Entities - why do you think I bothered responding? like anyone *wants* to have a dialog on "Nirguna", Advaitam, etc. - and it's not just Hindus/Hindu religion that they're gunning for. But I've already alluded to this a page or two ago in this thread. Either Hindus choose to do something about it, or they can wait around as usual until it chooses to do something about them.)
Oh and Romani, I don't want to be unnecessarily pulled into another round of "you said, I said" unless you are absolutely sure I said something dubious on a topic you find important to correct.
Quote:I didnt see were I denied the nirguna and propose only saguna.I already responded to the instances. (Repeat) You do it here:
Quote:1. You say that Brahman is sat-cit-ananda, truth(of existence),consciousness and happiness .This are clear personal attributes,so Brahman is a Person.If he is a person,surely it has other personal attributes and preferences-he may have a favorite form,favorite color and music and so one, no matter what we believe.And
Quote:2. Saguna Brahman and Parabrahman mean the same thing,just that saguna may have also the meaning of limited temporary qualities ,while para refer specifically to infinite transcendent qualities.Parabrahman is a real person(as he is real and have consciousness and happiness).On the 2nd: your statement that "Saguna and Parabrahman mean the same thing" leaves out that "Nirguna and Parabrahman (also) mean the same thing".
In Hindu religion, Parabrahman can mean both Saguna AND Nirguna Brahman. This is left open to the traditional Hindu. It's not just one OR the other. For the individual Hindu's experience and understanding it is "And/Or". For the Hindu religion it is "AND", like it is for Daoism etc.
Quote:It seems for me that you minimize the saguna at the expense of nirguna.
I just that exist a person that is the source of all other persons.Brahman is also one and also many .But that one it doesn't mean only the nirguna aspect.
It was you who unduly stressed (insisted on) the one and started it all off by trying to make Shankara sound like the inventor of an attributeless Brahman and linking his mention of the already-long-established *Hindu* explanation of Nirguna with the entirely unrelated Buddhism. I merely corrected your statements in saying that Shankara was a Hindu as he was but parroting Hindooism on this, that he never even focused purely on the Nirguna (again, he was very Hindoo in his significant focus on Saguna) and that Buddhism is entirely unrelated in such Hindu matters.
I pointed out that Shankara was but a typical Hindoo - of a certain type.
Quote:It seems for me that you minimize the saguna at the expense of nirgunaYour supposition is patently untrue. And you could have verified it for yourself -
Case in point is my #78 in response to agnivayu's "We are a part and parcel of Brahman" shortly after he had stated "Man makes God in his image, so the idea that God is of only one form is flawed. An Advanced Alien civilization will depict God in their form not like a human":
Quote:"Brahman." And more blablabla.
Sounds very non-existent.
Especially when combined with the denial of the Gods. (Claiming the forms of the Gods are of man's invention/'genius' IS denial of their forms. And denial of the forms of the Gods IS denial of the Gods themselves. The logic carries further, of course, but does one really have to state the obvious?)
Quote:I didnt make that up ,just like you i pointed to the hindu writings that say so.
Correction to your claim: It was you who brought up the "impersonal Brahman without attributes", Advaita (and Shankara) - your posts #55, #63 (and again in #81) to which I responded. And it was me who pointed out that those things *too* were supported by Hindu texts. Of course, Saguna is certainly extremely highly supported as well (something which I also referred to).
In no other way does Nirguna even concern me or most Hindus I know. I don't know how often I need to repeat this.
I have certainly *never* minimised the Gods, though you minimise the plurality of them or the traditional Hindu recognition (through such statements like your question "who is the only worthy to be worshipped") that the Hindu Gods are All variously seen as the Supreme Ultimate - either on their own, with their spouse, in families, or sets of n, or altogether.
Quote:Anyway i think we do here,hair splitting activity.No. And it was worth correcting/pointing out. Though it really ought to have been others that corrected it* and not me.
(* It's in their interest, because the very topics you ended up leading into has been latched onto elsewhere by Very Unfriendly Entities - why do you think I bothered responding? like anyone *wants* to have a dialog on "Nirguna", Advaitam, etc. - and it's not just Hindus/Hindu religion that they're gunning for. But I've already alluded to this a page or two ago in this thread. Either Hindus choose to do something about it, or they can wait around as usual until it chooses to do something about them.)
Oh and Romani, I don't want to be unnecessarily pulled into another round of "you said, I said" unless you are absolutely sure I said something dubious on a topic you find important to correct.