-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Advaita questions
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
Maya is illusion. It's the dream or hallucination we create in our minds and perceive as a world or reality.
Brahman is the fabric or brane underlying Reality, it's expression is Reality itself. It has no properties (gunas), so is, essentially, nir-guna.
However, how can one discuss something with no features at all?
Unlike the more sensible Buddhists, we Hindu types can't resist talking about mystical things like this till we're blue in the face (you've seen what happened to Krishna, I'm sure
), so we add features to it, for convenience.
Brahman with handy features tacked on then becomes becomes sa-guna.
Atman is just Brahman conceived of as vital breath, spirit or soul. This is a feature, so it's saguna. It's a favorite concept throughout the Hindu religions.
Brahman is the fabric or brane underlying Reality, it's expression is Reality itself. It has no properties (gunas), so is, essentially, nir-guna.
However, how can one discuss something with no features at all?
Unlike the more sensible Buddhists, we Hindu types can't resist talking about mystical things like this till we're blue in the face (you've seen what happened to Krishna, I'm sure
), so we add features to it, for convenience.Brahman with handy features tacked on then becomes becomes sa-guna.
Atman is just Brahman conceived of as vital breath, spirit or soul. This is a feature, so it's saguna. It's a favorite concept throughout the Hindu religions.
Last edited:
No. Maya is the veil (or glass, as Swami Vivekananda referred to it) consisting of time, space and causation that keeps one in ignorance of one's true nature as Brahman.
Saguna Brahman is Nirguna Brahman with qualities. I think it might be fair to say that Nirguna Brahman appears as Saguna Brahman as a result of maya.
Atman is an appearance of Nirguna Brahman as a wave is an appearance of the ocean. The wave and the ocean are both water.
Quite welcome.
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Maya is illusion. It's the dream or hallucination we create in our minds and perceive as a world or reality.
Brahman is the fabric or brane underlying Reality, it's expression is Reality itself. It has no properties (gunas), so is, essentially, nir-guna.
However, how can one discuss something with no features at all?
Unlike the more sensible Buddhists, we Hindu types can't resist talking about mystical things like this till we're blue in the face (you've seen what happened to Krishna, I'm sure
Brahman with handy features tacked on then becomes becomes sa-guna.
Atman is just Brahman conceived of as vital breath, spirit or soul. This is a feature, so it's saguna. It's a favorite concept throughout the Hindu religions.
Thanks. An interesting point about Atman being Saguna Brahman. Does this mean that Atman is a manifestation of Brahman?
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
Thanks. I'm still not clear about the relationship here between Maya and Saguna Brahman. Do you mean that Maya "causes" Saguna Brahman? And when the illusion of Maya is "seen through", what happens to Saguna Brahman?
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
No - Atman is the individual self - it is Param Atman - or Parmatma as is colloquially called in India that reflects Brahman IMO
Maya is the illusion of this reality - some liken it to the play (Lila) of the divine - the cosmic dance if you will
Saguna is the Brahman with attributes (created by humans IMO in order to find something tangible to think upon / worship) - try worshipping an absolute reality that is beyond (at least my) understanding - I tried and failed in about 5 minutes as thoughts wander. Having something familiar and tangible to focus on makes it a little easier
Not being "hindu" in the strictest sense I concentrate on the word and vibrations from saying "Waheguru" over and over some times as is and sometimes set to music - you can find on YouTube
You can use "Aum" sometimes called "Om" - or Narayan or Ram (easiest IMO) or Nirankaar or Sai-ee or Bee-thal or any word that suits you - unlike other beliefs IMO again - the divine does not care how you refer to it -
Last edited:
More accurately, the purpose of Saguna Brahman, as I understand it, is to help one to realize Brahman in vyavaharika through bhakti yoga, as @ManSinha alludes to above.
I'm more of a jnana yogi myself and don't practice bhakti yoga, so your second question would be best answered by a bhaki yogi who worships Saguna Brahman that has had such a mystical experience.
I don't really know.
Maya is the ignorance that causes one to perceive the world as made of many many diverse category of essences.
Well I'll attempt a mathematical equation for an answer:
Nirguna Brahman + Maya = Saguna Brahaman
Everything's a manifestation of Brahman. We just like to create endless categories, qualities and subdivisions. Makes us feel we have a handle on things, I guess.
Maybe you can think of yourself as a 'pinched off' portion of Brahman; a jiv-Atman.
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
One has to understand what is meant by 'nirguna'. Don't we say that Brahman is eternal? Is that not a 'guna' (attribute)? Don't we say that Brahman does not have preferences ('nirlipta')? 'Nirpeksha', without desires. Then we say Brahman is form-less, changeless, etc. All these are 'gunas'. Perhaps what is meant is that it does not acquire new 'gunas'.
In light of what I wrote above, Brahman is always 'saguna'.
Yeah, Maya is the effect (consequence) of existence of Brahman. Like there are atoms and molecules, and things made of them, acting in their own ways. Why all this - because 'Energy Exists'
Yeah, Brahman is identical with Atman. The books say 'Ayamatma Brahman' (This self is Brahman).
Last edited:
True, even my explanation of Brahman as fabric or brane involves attributes. Nirguna cannot be discussed or described. Any descriptor needs be of Saguna or Iswara.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
All what is manifested or unmanifested is Brahman only, since there is none other. "Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti' (What exists is one, there is no second). That is what 'Advaita' is (non-duality).
* 'Sad' is from the same root from which came 'sit'.
That fails because one cannot worship his own self? Why use the word 'divine' or 'not divine'? All things are the same because all are constituted by the same entity.
Of course, I understand that though you too believe in non-duality, your views may be a bit different from mine. "Nanak naam jahaz hai, charhe so utre paar".
We are on the same journey. You are going in Guru Nanak's ship, I am going in Gaudapada, Sankara's ship.
As I said, 'maya' is 'caused by' and not 'causes Brahman'. What can happen to Brahman (whether 'saguna' or 'nirguna')? Basically, nothing. Nothing effects Brahman. It is eternal and changeless.
Last edited:
After 50 years of association with Hinduism, nothing would surprise me.You would be surprised
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Don't we do it all the time, going round and round and round.You would be surprised
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
I thought Maya was the result of avidya?
Avidya being the assumption that the world of appearances is real.
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
From what I can tell, Saguna Brahman is the world of qualities and appearances, with Nirguna Brahman the underlying reality.
These appear to be a general classification, and I don't think they relate directly to Maya, which is a specifically Advaita development.
Last edited:
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
"Everything's a manifestation of Brahman" sounds right to me. But does that include Maya?
Last edited: