Hindu Only: Brahman

[SalixIncendium]

All Advaitins accept Nirguna Brahman as it is an integral part of the doctrine.

Other traditions of Vedanta (Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita, etc) reject the concept. Their views are aligned.

Are you suggesting here that there are other schools of Hinduism outside of Vedanta that accept the concept of Nirguna Brahman?

No Hindu here that has voted in the so far indicate that they reject the concept of Nirguna Brahman. The only one that leans toward rejection claims to be an Advaitin himself. If your proposal above were to hold water, either those that voted are not Vedantin and follow another tradition outside of Vedanta that accepts the concept, or that they are Advaitin and just don't know it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Though I claim to be a staunch 'advaitist', Brahman can never be termed as 'nirguna'. Like Shiva (Shivsomashekhar) said, do we not accept that Brahman is eternal?

Under which of the three gunas would you classify "eternal?" Rajas, tamas, or sattva?

 

[Aupmanyav]

IMHO, O Gentle Enquirer, none of these. These gunas appear only in Vyavaharika. 'Neti, neti'.

No Hindu here that has voted in the so far indicate that they reject the concept of Nirguna Brahman.

I think Shiva is correct. Technically, Brahman is 'nirguna' only in Advaita. Even there, Sankara accepts 'Saguna', Ishwara, exists in Vyavaharika. Gaudapada is more forthright. He rejects Ishwara. Probably Sankara had to accept Ishwara, or otherwise opposition to him would have been more ferocious. Most Hindus are not very clear about fundamentals.

 

[SalixIncendium]

IMHO, O Gentle Enquirer, none of these. These gunas appear only in Vyavaharika. 'Neti, neti'.

As does "eternal." In Paramartika, there is nothing to differentiate "eternal" from anything else, because there would be nothing that isn't.

 

[Aupmanyav]

As does "eternal." In Paramartika, there is nothing to differentiate "eternal" from anything else, because there would be nothing that isn't.

True, Salix. Since Brahman is all that there is. To whom it would be Tamas or Rajas or even Sattva?
In the language of science; is energy Tamas, Rajas or Sattva? As you would say, comparing apples to oranges.

About Gaudapada: "While details of his biography are uncertain, his ideas inspired others such as Adi Shankara who called him a Paramaguru (highest teacher)."
Gaudapada - Wikipedia

 

[Martin]

Whether Brahman interacts with life on earth. If it does, then it is Ishwara, and Saguna, a personal God.
Worshipers of Mother Goddess saw it in the form of Shakti, Adi Shakti, primordial power / energy.
Then came Shiva-Shakti. Ishwara and his power. and the saying that Shiva is 'shava' (dead body) without Shakti.
The Hindu way of bringing together two different views. So one consort or two is must for a God. Vishnu / Lakshmi, Shiva / Parvati, Rama / Sita, Krishna / Rukmani / Radha, Kartikeya / Devasena / Valli, Ganesha / Riddhi / Siddhi, etc.
I will check what Gaudapada or Brahma Sutras say about it.
For myself, Brahman does not interact with the world.

So for you, Brahman is an assumed noumena beneath phenomena?

 

[Martin]

The distinction makes it possible to talk about the featureless without resorting to pure maths.
Many languages have nouns, verbs, adjectives, &c. How would we apply any of these to a no-thing; featureless, changeless, timeless? Attaching gunas makes it possible to conceive of and talk about Brahman, though with features it might be proper to call it by a different name.

The material world around us is dualistic, it's full of different things, and it's layered, ie: hierarchical. The 'things' are made of parts and substances. These are made of molecules, which are made of atoms -- and we're already down to only 92 'things' in the world. But atoms, too can be subdivided, as can component baryons like neutrons or protons, "composed of" of various flavors of quarks. A proton, for example, has two up and one down quark, but this accounts for only about 1% of the proton's mass, the rest is in various binding energies, -- its Shakti -- and so on.

This doesn't mean there are two types of Brahman, or that the distinction is unnecessary. Brahman is a concept of theoretical physics; a metaphysics articulated as best a primitive people could, with the inadequate linguistic tools they had.

Physics seeks a single, fundamental, unifying "stuff," "force," brane" or "brahman," underlying all reality -- from which reality emanates.
There are not 'two types' of reality, and perhaps these 'distinctions' are irrelevant to the average householder, but this does not make them meaningless to philosophers, sadhus or scientists.

Leaving aside the pseudo-science, what you're basically saying is that people need a way of recognising Brahman?
And yet in the Upanishads, everything is Brahman, both the seen and the unseen. So why the need for the distinction?

 

[Martin]

What a muddle. From what I can tell, the Nirguna v. Saguna distinction was introduced later by Adi Shanhkara. The distinction was necessary to support the doctrine of Atman = (Nirguna) Brahman.

I sort of like Advaita, but the faith-based rhetoric, pseudo-science and woolly thinking are irritating.

 

[Valjean]

What a muddle. From what I can tell, the Nirguna v. Saguna distinction was introduced later by Adi Shanhkara. The distinction was necessary to support the doctrine of Atman = (Nirguna) Brahman.

I sort of like Advaita, but the faith-based rhetoric and woolly thinking is irritating.

Which is why it's better to use physics or familiar relationships to explain it, rather than ancient poetry. Dueling scriptures never seems to go anywhere.

 

[Martin]

Which is why it's better to use physics or familiar relationships to explain it, rather than ancient poetry. Dueling scriptures never seems to go anywhere.

Physics and family relationships can be applied to all sorts of things. The question here is the need for a distinction between Brahman with and without qualities (features?).
You can either look at what the scriptures say, or you can make stuff up. There's nothing wrong with making stuff up, providing one is honest about it.

 

[Valjean]

Physics and family relationships can be applied to all sorts of things. The question here is the need for a distinction between Brahman with and without qualities (features?).
You can either look at what the scriptures say, or you can make stuff up. There's nothing wrong with making stuff up, providing one is honest about it.

Or you can ignore the confusing morass of scripture and explore the issues yourself.
Until western civilization stopped looking for answers in scripture and began observing and experimenting unencumbered, it never achieved much understanding of anything, just endless squabbling over what this or that passage meant.

 

[Martin]

Or you can ignore the confusing morass of scripture and explore the issues yourself.
Until western civilization stopped looking for answers in scripture and began observing and experimenting unencumbered, it never achieved much understanding of anything, just endless squabbling over what this or that passage meant.

We can all ignore the scriptures. We can all explore for ourselves, we can all make stuff up. Whatever. New-age clichés.

But the topic here is Nirguna Brahman, and whether it's exclusively an Advaita doctrine.

I'm suggesting it IS an exclusively Advaita thing, and that it's a contrived distinction made necessary by the doctrine of Atman = Brahman. Not in the Upanishads.
Show me wrong.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So for you, Brahman is an assumed noumena beneath phenomena?

For me, not assumed, but IS.

"everything is Brahman, both the seen and the unseen. So why the need for the distinction?"
Agree with the statement completely. No need for distinction between any two things, whatever they may be.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What a muddle. From what I can tell, the Nirguna v. Saguna distinction was introduced later by Adi Shanhkara. The distinction was necessary to support the doctrine of Atman = (Nirguna) Brahman.

I sort of like Advaita, but the faith-based rhetoric, pseudo-science and woolly thinking are irritating.

No muddle for those who understand (this way). Gods and Goddesses were always considered 'saguna' in Hinduism. 'Nirguna' comes up with 'advaita' - not something new started by Sanakracharya. It is older than him. It was advocated by the guru of Sankara's Guru, i.e., Gaudapada.

It is there is various upanishads. With Brahman, the theory of 'Atman' (soul) becomes redundant, since everything is 'That', animate or inanimate. There is no separate 'atman' (soul) in anything. Mandukya - 'Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma' (All things here are Brahman), "Ayam atma Brahma" (This self is Brahman). Brihadaranyaka 'Aham Brahmasmi" (I am Brahman). Chandogya 'Tat twam asi' (That is what you are, or as commonly translated "Thou art that").

Now, what you think of it is a separate issue and your choice.

 

[Valjean]

We can all ignore the scriptures. We can all explore for ourselves, we can all make stuff up. Whatever. New-age clichés.

But the topic here is Nirguna Brahman, and whether it's exclusively an Advaita doctrine.

I'm suggesting it IS an exclusively Advaita thing, and that it's a contrived distinction made necessary by the doctrine of Atman = Brahman. Not in the Upanishads.
Show me wrong.

The experience of non-duality is universal, and does not seem to be culture-bound. The same experience of unity has been described by mystics throughout history, from all over the world, using their own cultural idioms.

The same Unity/Brahman is common to Hindu, Buddhist, Sufi and countless shamanic teachings. It's probably the longest lasting and most widespread religious/spiritual teaching in history.
Mystical Experience and 6 Characteristics of it
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/
9 Characteristics of the Mystical Experience

Nirguna Brahman is the focus of modern theoretical physics. It's the Unity underlying the four fundamental forces, the universal constants, the laws of physics. This Theory of Everything is the holy grail of physics.
Much of this integration of diversity has already been achieved, with the integration of electricity and magnetism, matter and energy, time and space, gravity and acceleration, &c. Quantum mechanics continues this trend, and, at the frontiers of physics, physicists are currently wrestling with even more integrative "theories."

Nirguna Brahman is so universal a doctrine, in fact, that Huxley dubbed it "Perennial Philosophy."

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Are you suggesting here that there are other schools of Hinduism outside of Vedanta that accept the concept of Nirguna Brahman?

Hindu is a very loose term. There are Hindus who accept Jesus as an avatar of Vishnu and worship his pictures. Consequently, I cannot give a confident response to that question.

To get specific,

1. There are multiple flavors of Vedanta
2. Advaita, Dvaita and Vishishtadvasta are the most established and well known Vedanta doctrines
3. Of these three, only Advaita supports the concept of Nirguna Brahman,The other two are explicit in rejecting the concept.
4. Given the high level of diversity among Hindu beliefs, it is certainly possible that there are certain non-Vedantic groups that may accept a Nirguna Brahman
5. I am not aware of any active non-Advaitin Vedantins on this forum. Hence, it is not a surprise that no one would vote for this category. But your voting options seem to be testing for Advaitins who do not accept Nirguna Brahman and that is an unlikely category.

Vedanta: Any doctrine that use the three scriptures (Brahma sutras, the Gita and the main Upanishads) as its basis and attempts to provide a consistent interpretation of these texts. There are at least two dozen commentators of the Sutras.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Which is why it's better to use physics or familiar relationships to explain it, rather than ancient poetry. Dueling scriptures never seems to go anywhere.

A couple of points -

1. In traditional Indian philosophy, the role of scripture is to provide information that cannot be obtained through other epistemological sources such as perception and inference. For example, Narayana can be known *only* from scripture and not through any other means.

2. At a personal level, we can choose to interpret Brahman however we want. But I think we should guard ourselves from assuming or claiming that this is what is meant in scripture. That is definitely not the case here for no Vedantin scholar has interpreted Brahman as energy that can be studied through empirical methods. So, long as we remain honest to ourselves that we are introducing new (unorthodox) interpretations, we should be fine

 

[Valjean]

A couple of points -

1. In traditional Indian philosophy, the role of scripture is to provide information that cannot be obtained through other epistemological sources such as perception and inference. For example, Narayana can be known *only* from scripture and not through any other means.

But the scriptures, presumably, were written by those who did perceive the realities they were attempting to describe. They were not written by the finger of God.
The whole goal of Hindu religious practices -- yogas -- is to achieve a neurological alteration in which ontological Reality is directly perceived.

Now that we have the technology to investigate these claims and neurological states, why not use it? The method greatly increased our scientific understanding of the material world, despite the claims of religious traditionalists that these things are best 'investigated' scripturally.

2. At a personal level, we can choose to interpret Brahman however we want. But I think we should guard ourselves from assuming or claiming that this is what is meant in scripture. That is definitely not the case here for no Vedantin scholar has interpreted Brahman as energy that can be studied through empirical methods. So, long as we remain honest to ourselves that we are introducing new (unorthodox) interpretations, we should be fine

I wouldn't expect traditional Hindu theologians to understand or trust science any more than Abrahamic ones did.
Scriptural theology is traditional. Novelty threatens tradition. Still, though, current interpretations of theoretical physics don't strike me as either particularly new or unorthodox, just more detailed and expressed in a different language.

 

[ajay0]

As noted in the title, this thread is in Same Faith Debates and is for Hindus only. If you do not identify as Hindu, please refrain from posting here or participating in the poll.

In another thread, it was suggested that Advaita Vedanta is the only school in Hinduism that accepts the concept of Nirguna Brahman (Brahman without qualities). .

Yes, based on what I know, I would say that Advaita Vedanta is the only school in Hinduism that accepts the concept of Nirguna Brahman (Brahman without qualities) or the impersonal Brahman.

All other Vedantic philosophies focus on the personalised Brahman, Saguna Brahman, in order to cater to Bhakti Yoga.

The Nirguna Brahman in Advaita is perceived as cold and sterile by the Bhaktas and not popular amongst them.

It was also suggested that there is only one Brahman and that Brahman has several gunas.

There are only three Guna's sattva, rajas and tamas and they are considered the attributes of Prakriti or nature and present in all things. Prakriti or nature of course is the tangible manifestation of Brahman or pure consciousness.

 

[ajay0]

But the scriptures, presumably, were written by those who did perceive the realities they were attempting to describe. They were not written by the finger of God.
The whole goal of Hindu religious practices -- yogas -- is to achieve a neurological alteration in which ontological Reality is directly perceived.

Now that we have the technology to investigate these claims and neurological states, why not use it? The method greatly increased our scientific understanding of the material world, despite the claims of religious traditionalists that these things are best 'investigated' scripturally..

Scientists like Schrodinger and Werner Heisenburg have pointed out the similarities between Vedanta and quantum physics.

But mere intellectual understanding, scripturally or scientifically, is not going to make anyone enlightened and wise. It is the conscious, diligent and austere development of nondual perception that brings about enlightenment.