Nirguna Brahman in our philosophy

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

You call it as trying to define the invisible pink unicorn or the holy grail, it only shows that the goal is very difficult. It makes you believe it is not possible

But I do not think it is mere speculation. Even among normal people you can find variations in the extent of one's needs. Then why not extrapolate and conclude that in extreme cases one does not feel the need to seek. Also if ancient people had gone to great lengths to eulogize that state, I bet they had first hand experience and what they said was not speculation.

 

[sravna]

Shri Sravna,

Atheists agree with it. That one has to keep his/her mind pure and strong and free from adulteration, for better and descent/civil survival.

Dear Ravi,

If someone agrees with it, to me he is no longer a atheist but a theist. What is god or brahman anyway? The epitome of good qualities. If one has that everything else will fall in place.

 

[renuka]

Beautifully said Ravi!!! Couldn't have expressed better!

Both you guys Ravi and Sravna write so well.This is much better than playing fireworks!!! Keep up the good work.
When I see the debate in this thread I am learning more about VA from other learned members.
This thread brings out the best in everyone including what is deep in anyone's subconscious.
Simply great!!

 

[prasad1]

I do not like the labels like theist and atheist. The definition is based most;y on Christian interpretation of God.

If you believe that there is a power greater than you you are a theist, and if you believe that you are the end-all then you are an atheist.

There can be various shades of theism under this category.

If I believe in the nirguna God, I still do not have to believe that he is an active participant, or the judge, and executor of events in this universe.
It could be just the faith that God is basis of everything.

The system of philosophy that further develops the implications in the Upanishads that all reality is a single principle, Brahman, and teaches that the believer's goal is to transcend the limitations of self-identity and realize one's unity with Brahman.

 

[sravna]

Be it Nirguna Brahman or Srirman Narayana, there is little difference in what they stand for. In fact what God represents or stands for is the same in all the religions. The essence of God is the same though the way he is presented differs.

The real abomination for SV or any religious school of thought is/should be, self being supreme.

 

[talwan]

'Be it Nirguna Brahman or Srirman Narayana, there is little difference in what they stand for.'
I beg to differ that there is little difference in the about quote.
Sriman Narayanan is not Nirguna.He has all the Gunas.The Nirguna of Brahman is the Advaitha theory.So there is Total Difference between Nirguna Brahman and Sriman Narayanan.
Alwan

 

[Govinda]

When two such absolutely contradictory points of view have been upheld by two most highly respected and revered Acharyas of Hinduism and when most Hindu believers will not dare question Truth is elsewhere, "Where No Man Has Gone Before".

Hence all these blah blahs about Nirguna Brahmopaasana and all that is just fit for consumption of gullible heads which can be filled with a false sense of being highly spiritual by discussing these and similar topics.

Hindus don't question is because India had a violent history of invasions, mix of cultures, non-vedic rulership, hence people just adapt/adopt to the philosophies of that time . Like Advaita took over Buddhism, saivism was prominent during Cholas (lasted longer), Vaishnavism came later. With the British/Moghul/Freedom, People had to struggle for livelihood, and had to live with whatever the society as a whole practised. So, there was not much of questioning/inquiry. These don not make Our scriptures fallible.

or even doubt the status of these two Acharyas or Seers as people who had "experience of the Supreme Reality",

Status of the Acharyas has nothing to do with Logic or Inquiry in Hinduism. Respect for an elderly/scholarly person is different from Inquiry/Questioning. Sankara Advaita was challenged and refuted by many other scholars/saints of later years. It was Sankara's need to interpret Upanishads in regard to Monism (as Buddhism was a near coutnerpart then!), that doesnot make Advaita the authority for Vedas.

If Vaishnavism doesn't reflect the understanding behind the Vedas, that would not pass the test either. Thus, the philosophies are interpretations to the Upanishadic texts. The one that reflects the Vedas in true philosophical/realistic sense (not just the headcount or rulership!), stands the test and should be followed.

the only logical conclusion is that none of these two descriptions of the Absolute Reality or Brahman, is reliable.

With due respect, You didn't understand a bit of them, how did they become unrealiable ?

Hence all these blah blahs about Nirguna Brahmopaasana and all that is just fit for consumption of gullible heads which can be filled with a false sense of being highly spiritual by discussing these and similar topics.

It is un-realistic to even think of a formless/nirguna object, let alone meditating on that. Then, How did you describe so much about that 'blah blah of Nirguna Upansana' in your previous post???

Can anyone imagine the air, wind or fragrance, except for the sound/smell/movement? Atleast these formless air/wind/fragrance, has the properties for sense (Vishesha). Air cannot be felt, Wind can be felt by touch, Fragrance can be smelled [Fart can be smelled/heard] , Thus the same air changes (vikAra) to wind/fragrance etc with the addition of qualities.

But Brahman of Sankara, has no-form (nir-guna), no attributes (nir-vishesha) or nir-vihAra (no change), how are you going to imagine or even meditate on such a thing??? You are clueless!

 

[Yamaka]

Dear Ravi,

If someone agrees with it, to me he is no longer a atheist but a theist. What is god or brahman anyway? The epitome of good qualities. If one has that everything else will fall in place.

Sravna:

Here we need to really define as to who are Theists:

They BELIEVE in the Super-Natural God or Agency (probably in the form of a human being as a Super Man) standing somewhere in the Universe, controlling ALL human as well as inanimate activities.

Who are Atheists?

They do NOT BELIEVE in the Super-Natural God or Agency of the Theists.

Your definition is perhaps, the Neo-Theists' thinking that only Theists will have "pure and strong mind, free from adulteration".

Most human beings whether Theists or Atheists have "pure and strong mind, free from adulteration", IMO.

It's the EGO of the Theists that they hog those attributes to themselves!

 

[Govinda]

They BELIEVE in the Super-Natural God or Agency (probably in the form of a human being as a Super Man) standing somewhere in the Universe, controlling ALL human as well as inanimate activities.

You got half of that right. That Transcendent Super Man is also immanent in every living being and the inanimate.

 

[Nara]

... ... The one that reflects the Vedas in true philosophical/realistic sense (not just the headcount or rulership!), stands the test and should be followed.

First and foremost, this test -- one that reflects the Vedas -- can be a valid test only to the extent Vedas are valid. The validity of the Vedas has only been asserted, not proven.

Then, there is this problem of interpretation. First came A. After A came VA debunking A, but to this day A has not conceded to VA. After VA came D that debunked both A and VA, and to this day neither A nor VA has conceded to D. Then there are other Vedantic traditions, each asserting only their interpretation is correct and that of all others is bunk. Nobody concedes to anybody else. This is the reality today.

When we take these problems together, i.e. (i) the validity of Vedas is only asserted not demonstrated, and (ii) there is multiplicity of interpretation each adamantly rejecting all other interpretations and resolutely insisting only their interpretation is the correct one, what we end up with is nothing but groups of people each sticking to their dogma, not giving an inch. One may decorate their dogma, given to them by the accident of their birth, with beautiful analogies, speculations, musings, but you peel off these decorations, all one is left with is stubborn dogma.

But Brahman of Sankara, has no-form (nir-guna), no attributes (nir-vishesha) or nir-vihAra (no change), how are you going to imagine or even meditate on such a thing??? You are clueless!

I don't understand this question, AFAIC see, Sangom is not arguing for a nirguna/nirvishesha Brahman, what is the problem?

BTW, what is your point? Are you saying those who subscribe to Advaitam and Sankara's nirguna brhman are clueless? Please clarify.

Cheers!

 

[Yamaka]

You got half of that right. That Transcendent Super Man is also immanent in every living being and the inanimate.

Even in the heart and mind of the self-proclaimed Atheists?

If so, that's your wild FANTASY - A Grand FICTION.

ROFL.. then LOL.

 

[happyhindu]

Hindus don't question is because India had a violent history of invasions, mix of cultures, non-vedic rulership, hence people just adapt/adopt to the philosophies of that time .

Kindly clarify what do you mean by non-vedic rulership?

Like Advaita took over Buddhism, saivism was prominent during Cholas (lasted longer), Vaishnavism came later.

Please clarify how did Vaishnavism come after Saivism?

With the British/Moghul/Freedom, People had to struggle for livelihood, and had to live with whatever the society as a whole practised. So, there was not much of questioning/inquiry. These don not make Our scriptures fallible.

Are you saying the 'reasons' given by you are sufficient to claim that our scriptures are infallible? Which scriptures are infallible?

Status of the Acharyas has nothing to do with Logic or Inquiry in Hinduism. Respect for an elderly/scholarly person is different from Inquiry/Questioning. Sankara Advaita was challenged and refuted by many other scholars/saints of later years. It was Sankara's need to interpret Upanishads in regard to Monism (as Buddhism was a near coutnerpart then!), that doesnot make Advaita the authority for Vedas.

Agreed that Advaita is not an authority for or of Vedas. Question would be which parts of Advaita are based on the Vedas. Is Shankara's Nirguna concept based on the Vedas? If so, in what way? And how can it be validated?

If Vaishnavism doesn't reflect the understanding behind the Vedas, that would not pass the test either. Thus, the philosophies are interpretations to the Upanishadic texts. The one that reflects the Vedas in true philosophical/realistic sense (not just the headcount or rulership!), stands the test and should be followed.

Are you saying Vaishnavism reflects the understanding of the Vedas? If yes, which parts of Vaishavism reflects the understanding of which texts of vedas and/or upanishads ?

Regards.

 

[prasad1]

You got half of that right. That Transcendent Super Man is also immanent in every living being and the inanimate.

Sorry the pack is after you. You can not placate them by feeding, they think it is fair game to hunt. You got to have something stronger.

Welcome back un-happy ......

 

[sravna]

Shri Yamaka,

Super natural means something which is beyond the natural and has a positive connotation. The acts of humans can be supernatural too. Tell me how many people can overcome their ego, not seek pleasures, or face sufferings positively. These are not done by normal people but by supernormal people marked by very high maturity.

But normally people associate the word "supernatural"
with miraculous powers. I think there is truth to it. That is, people who are supernormal do possess such powers. We have heard of psychics and other real life people, for example those who can cure health problems, in our own time performing some miraculous feats. So why not give credence to the feats performed in the ancient times by our rishis. If even the present day which is not at all conducive for spiritual development can produce a few such people why not in ancient times when spiritual development was nurtured and accorded a very high importance?

 

[sangom]

Originally Posted by sangom When two such absolutely contradictory points of view have been upheld by two most highly respected and revered Acharyas of Hinduism and when most Hindu believers will not dare question Truth is elsewhere, "Where No Man Has Gone Before".

Hence all these blah blahs about Nirguna Brahmopaasana and all that is just fit for consumption of gullible heads which can be filled with a false sense of being highly spiritual by discussing these and similar topics.

Originally posted by govinda"
Hindus don't question is because India had a violent history of invasions, mix of cultures, non-vedic rulership, hence people just adapt/adopt to the philosophies of that time . Like Advaita took over Buddhism, saivism was prominent during Cholas (lasted longer), Vaishnavism came later. With the British/Moghul/Freedom, People had to struggle for livelihood, and had to live with whatever the society as a whole practised. So, there was not much of questioning/inquiry. These don not make Our scriptures fallible.

Buddhism (and Jainism, not to forget Charvaka) did question and there were violent history of invasions during those periods too. If you hold the view that "Advaita took over Buddhism" I have no difference of opinion on that but if you read the commentary of Sankara on the Brahmasutra, there is enough of criticism of Buddhism. So how do we say that Advaita took over Buddhism? And when you admit that "With the British/Moghul/Freedom, People had to struggle for livelihood, and had to live with whatever the society as a whole practised. So, there was not much of questioning/inquiry.", it seems that all the questioning and all that happened only when there was great peace and prosperity and the population as a whole did not have to struggle for livelihood, and they practised different belief systems and there was questioning/inquiry of each other's beliefs. Can you substantiate these?

or even doubt the status of these two Acharyas or Seers as people who had "experience of the Supreme Reality",

Status of the Acharyas has nothing to do with Logic or Inquiry in Hinduism. Respect for an elderly/scholarly person is different from Inquiry/Questioning. Sankara Advaita was challenged and refuted by many other scholars/saints of later years. It was Sankara's need to interpret Upanishads in regard to Monism (as Buddhism was a near coutnerpart then!), that doesnot make Advaita the authority for Vedas.

If Vaishnavism doesn't reflect the understanding behind the Vedas, that would not pass the test either. Thus, the philosophies are interpretations to the Upanishadic texts. The one that reflects the Vedas in true philosophical/realistic sense (not just the headcount or rulership!), stands the test and should be followed.

I take it that you are saying that respect for (status of) Acharyas in Hinduism has nothing to do with the logic of their viewpoints or their method of inquiry. Thus the respect is "blind adulation"; that was what I meant to convey by saying that it is only gullible minds who will benefit from all these differing perceptions of reality by various Acharyas; it reminds me of the story of the blind men and the elephants or even something worse.

the only logical conclusion is that none of these two descriptions of the Absolute Reality or Brahman, is reliable.

With due respect, You didn't understand a bit of them, how did they become unrealiable ?

I do not know on what premise/s you make the above statement that I did not understand a bit of them? Kindly elaborate and show how both are reliable.

Hence all these blah blahs about Nirguna Brahmopaasana and all that is just fit for consumption of gullible heads which can be filled with a false sense of being highly spiritual by discussing these and similar topics.

It is un-realistic to even think of a formless/nirguna object, let alone meditating on that. Then, How did you describe so much about that 'blah blah of Nirguna Upansana' in your previous post???

Can anyone imagine the air, wind or fragrance, except for the sound/smell/movement? Atleast these formless air/wind/fragrance, has the properties for sense (Vishesha). Air cannot be felt, Wind can be felt by touch, Fragrance can be smelled [Fart can be smelled/heard] , Thus the same air changes (vikAra) to wind/fragrance etc with the addition of qualities.

But Brahman of Sankara, has no-form (nir-guna), no attributes (nir-vishesha) or nir-vihAra (no change), how are you going to imagine or even meditate on such a thing??? You are clueless!

What I said in post#10 was this:—

I do not think Acharya Sankara advocated the upaasana (sitting near, literal meaning but commonly understood as worship with great concentration). Nirguna Brahman can only be "experienced" and, according to Sankara's advaita, this is possible even when one is alive. (Visishtadvaita does not support this.)

Sankara suggests nididhyaasana, constant, profound and repeated meditation on (about) the self for this purpose. However much one may worship idols or God forms, one will never reach a stage of meditating on the formless; meditating (concentrating) on the formless, has to be started from the very beginning. The two are like two different highways not having any connection at any point and each one leads to its own separate destination.

You will find that I said nirguna upaasana was not envisaged; you seem to agree with this. So, actually Shri Sravna is the person to put this question to.

I have said about constant, profound and repeated meditation on (about) the self as the method to experience the nirguns brahman as advocated by Sankara - but that is not my prescription nor do I subscribe to either formless or formed Brahman. If what Sankara said appears to you as 'blah blah', then, once again, we agree and sail in the same boat (or is yours the orthodox VA boat as against my agnostic country craft?).

The last para of your post seals the fate of nirguna brahmopaasana and it is for Shri Sravna to respond to it, I believe.

 

[sravna]

This time I am going to use some concepts of Science to support the view of theists. It is known that physical energy depends on speed and frequency.Higher the speed higher the energy possessed and higher the frequency, higher the energy. Physical energy is bound by both space and time i.e., it senses both space and time. The property of speed is related to space because any thing which has speed moves through space, thus it senses space or is bound by space.

Now the property of frequency is related to time because if something does not sense space what remains are all the entities that inhabited the space The concept of frequency implies that the energy interacts only with a specific matter. So frequency can be said to be a property that senses time because there is still some differentiation being made even after ignoring space. Now mental energy is said to travel instantaneously. So in other words it has transcended space which is a physical aspect. Thoughts only differ in frequencies which are related to time,the thoughts of each human possessing different frequencies.

Now the logical conclusion. Enter the spiritual energy. It can said to not sense even time and hence has a constant energy without any specific frequency. Just like mental energy it travels instantaneously. This fits well with the description in scriptures that spiritual energy transcends space and time.

Now how are those who possess spiritual energy have those miraculous powers? It is simple. Since their thoughts are spiritual i.e., with instantaneous speed and a constant energy all the physical and mental energy would be harmonized by them . In other words their thoughts have the capability to take the force off the physical and mental energy. We know everything including matter is only energy. If spiritual energy can make physical and mental energy disappear, practically anything is possible. You can make pain or diseases disappear by removing the energies that cause the pain etc. Since everything is eventually energy you can play around with any thing. Also making something happen is nothing but double negation. So if you have the power of negation, you possess all the powers for making things happen.

 

[sravna]

The description of spiritual energy as a constant energy fits well with the description of brahman as immutable. The description also shows spiritual energy as timeless. Now the million dollar question. Can energy be constant? The answer lies in the nature of mental energy which is constant in space as it is instantaneously everywhere. Because if it is not constant it would travel in space and not be instantaneous. So the other cause of energy change being frequency can also be a constant.

As a hypothetical situation if a person with such thoughts were to be born his thoughts would be picked up by every person.I would be careful not to stretch my imagination too much here. But it is tempting to use this as a mental exercise and explain the concept of brahman and maya.

For the person possessing pure spiritual energy, the mind would be brahman but since he lives in a physical world and there is a physical body, his thoughts are constrained and the nature of mind would not be revealed. The physical brain in this case acts as the maya which conceals the nature of brahman or the mind. So everyone who receives the thoughts of the person would have to see beneath the surface to get the real import of the thoughts. This is because due to constraints imposed by the brain or in other words due to the action of maya, the holistic reality gets transformed into a linear reality which needs to be properly interpreted. So only the ones with good foresight can grasp such reality.

We can consider the above example of mind and brain as a microcosm of what is actually happening. Because of constraints of physical realm we do not see the whole picture. Therefore we need to think beneath the surface to get the real import of events happening in our lives. Then it would be natural to assume there is purpose to life. With some reasoning we can conclude that the purpose is to become one with spiritual reality

 

[sangom]

Originally posted by Sravna here

It is known that physical energy depends on speed and frequency.Higher the speed higher the energy possessed and higher the frequency, higher the energy. Physical energy is bound by both space and time i.e., it senses both space and time. The property of speed is related to space because any thing which has speed moves through space, thus it senses space or is bound by space.

Now the property of frequency is related to time because if something does not sense space what remains are all the entities that inhabited the space The concept of frequency implies that the energy interacts only with a specific matter. So frequency can be said to be a property that senses time because there is still some differentiation being made even after ignoring space. Now mental energy is said to travel instantaneously. So in other words it has transcended space which is a physical aspect. Thoughts only differ in frequencies which are related to time,the thoughts of each human possessing different frequencies.

In respect of all physical energy systems, the frequency and speed relate to the vibrations of some constituents and the speed with which it is transmitted through the medium. For example heat energy usually requires a definite medium except when we talk of heat radiation.

In the case of "mental energy" to which medium/constituent do you attribute the vibration and how do you envisage the transmission? by means of what sort of radiation - from infra red to ultra violet or the radio waves or something esoteric?

 

[sravna]

By physical energy I mean the energy transmitted as waves such as electromagnetic waves. Thoughts are not transmitted or radiated. The thoughts emanating from the brain at a certain frequency are picked up by the same brain only because each person's brain picks up only his own thoughts in spite of all thoughts being instantaneously everywhere.

I would guess that a constant energy carries information. I would say this is because if there were a spiritual reality which is omniscient, mind which produces thoughts which being a constant energy in space would be more in sync with that omniscient spiritual reality and hence access to knowledge. But the extent of the knowledge you can access depends on how spiritual your thoughts are or in other words how much it is in sync with the omniscient spiritual reality.

In respect of all physical energy systems, the frequency and speed relate to the vibrations of some constituents and the speed with which it is transmitted through the medium. For example heat energy usually requires a definite medium except when we talk of heat radiation.

In the case of "mental energy" to which medium/constituent do you attribute the vibration and how do you envisage the transmission? by means of what sort of radiation - from infra red to ultra violet or the radio waves or something esoteric?

 

[Yamaka]

Ref : Sravana's post 41, 42, 44.

My problem is the so-called "Spiritual Energy" which is non-existent...

Spirituality / Religiosity is the province of Believers.... Non-Believers consider it as a form of ILLUSION OR FANTASY.

Thus, one may call it as Energy of Illusion or Fantasy! LOL

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Yamaka,

Physical reality cannot stand on its own. It needs a source. Science has no answer to this nor will it ever answer this because because experiments and physical observations will not answer it. It is a conceptual one. So spiritual reality is not an illusion.

 

[Yamaka]

Dear Shri Yamaka,

Physical reality cannot stand on its own. It needs a source. Science has no answer to this nor will it ever answer this because because experiments and physical observations will not answer it. It is a conceptual one. So spiritual reality is not an illusion.

Dear Sravna:

I agree with you that Spirituality is a "Conceptual one" conceptualized/engineered and articulated by the Believers.... Non-believers don't agree with that concept or idea.

The basis of physical reality is the REAL things around you visible and invisible.. and the source is Nature, which does not need or require prayers, poojas and bhajans!

You seem to dwell on Virtual things. I call Virtual things as Illusions... what else will you call it, since it is not REAL?

 

[sravna]

Why do you want to limit your notion of reality to what is visible? What is inferrable though not perceivable is also a reality. Physical reality as rightly categorized by the great thinker Sankara as relative reality because of its transient and secondary nature is the one that is closer to illusions.

 

[Nara]

..Physical reality as rightly categorized by the great thinker Sankara as relative reality because of its transient and secondary nature is the one that is closer to illusions.

sravna, you are using Sankara like a "oorukai". You simply ignore his views when they are not in line with what you speculate, but cite him when you feel like it. If you accept all of Sankara's arguments, then, much of what you have been speculating will fall flat on the ground. We have gone over all these earlier. I don't want to get into another round of the same arguments.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

sravna, you are using Sankara like a "oorukai". You simply ignore his views when they are not in line with what you speculate, but cite him when you feel like it. If you accept all of Sankara's arguments, then, much of what you have been speculating will fall flat on the ground. We have gone over all these earlier. I don't want to get into another round of the same arguments.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

If there is one person I don't even pause to think about assessing the truth of what he said it is Sankara. His philosophy totally strikes a chord with me and there is no question of dissonance with his views. To me Sankara is the last word in philosophy