There are degrees of reality; a hierarchy of complexity; worlds nested within worlds. In Vedanta, Brahman is generally the point at which all qualities merge into a featureless, undifferentiated singularity. But; as Krishnananda pointed out, a featureless nothingness is inconceivable; so, if we're to think or talk about Brahman it helps to attach some qualities to latch onto. This violates the definition, of course, but what can you do?
Brahman isn't God. Even Saguna Brahman is more than God. God comes into being at the point you personify some aspect of reality. God is generally conceived of as a personage.
Yes. You say: Even Saguna Brahman is more than God. I will go by that.
Brahman is defined as Sat (True), Anantam (Infinite), Jnanam (Knowledge) and Anandam (unbroken Bliss). And also 'One Without a Second'. These are not mere words. These are pointers to understanding.
For example. I have heard some say that Brahman is beyond Sukha-Dukha (Joy and Sadness) and thus they do not agree to the attribute "Anandam". They are trying to fool themselves. "Anandan" has no Antonym. It is without an opposite.
Similarly with Jnanam. Opposite of Jnanam is 'Ajnanam (Unconscious). Brahman is never Ajnanam. Furthermore, if Brahman alone IS, who or what knows it, if is not pure Jnanam? If Brahman, the 'One Without a Second', is not of the nature of Knowledge, then it will never know itself. So, Shankara defines Brahman, in line with Shruti, as below:
Viveka Chudamani of Shankara
127. Which Itself sees all, but which no one beholds, which illumines the intellect etc., but which they cannot illumine. – This is That.
225. Brahman is Existence, Knowledge, Infinity, pure, supreme, self-existent, eternal and indivisible Bliss, not different (in reality) from the individual soul, and devoid of interior or exterior. It is (ever) triumphant.
I understand that someone may point out that these attributes cannot apply to Nirguna, One without a Second. Yes. But these do too.
One cannot ever say that Brahman is "not Anandam" or "not Jnanam".
I missed your post for long. Since you brought up Krishnanada, I am citing a portion of his thought from the Preface of his book on Mandukya Upanishad.
Mandukya Upanishad krishnananda
We may recall to our memory the famous story of Sri Krishna taking a particle of food from the hands of Draupadi, in the Kamyaka forest, when she called to Him for help, and with this little grain that he partook of, the whole universe was filled, and all people were satisfied, because Krishna stood there tuned up with the Universal Virat. So is also the case with any person who is in a position to meditate on the Virat, and assume the position of the Virat. The whole universe shall become friendly with this Person; all existence shall ask for sustenance and blessing from this Universal Being.
This meditator is no more a human being; he is veritably, God Himself. The meditator on Vaisvanara is himself Vaisvanara, the Supreme Virat.
Yes. That is the position of the Vedas. Shruti says:
Knower of Brahman becomes Brahman. However since, Brahman is anantam (infinite) it is pre-mature for an ego self to declare "I am Brahman".