So-called 'Brahman' that has no gunas, is that even possible?

[Viraja]

I am not a scholar and don't expect thus to participate if the discussion changes to very scholarly, quoting texts and verses, etc.

But that said, I nevertheless wonder if anything in nature can ever be 'devoid of gunas'.

Read this from a recent Velukkudi Krishnan swami lecture:

"Parabrahmam without gunas is a non-existent entity. There is no pure brahmam. The highest is the saguna brahmam.
If you take anything in creation or even fathom anything outside of it, you can see that nothing transcends the boundaries of so-called 'guna'. For example, fathom a flower - you'll feel its softness for touch, that is some specific-colored, has/has not fragrance, etc, etc. These attributes that we call 'guna' are present even for atomic particles. Atoms are depicted as 'round', 'moving here and there', etc. So anything in the entire Universe has 'gunas'. Thus, there is no such thing called 'pure parabrahmam'. 'Shuddha Sattwa' is the highest mode of guna and characterizes the highest brahmam namely 'Saguna Brahmam'."

- Velukkudi Sri U.Ve.Krishnan Swami in an upanyasa.

Your thoughts, if any?

 

[SalixIncendium]

He’s right about this: Nothing “in creation” can be devoid of gunas.

What is “outside of it [creation]”?

 

[Vinayaka]

Beyond form, beyond time, beyond space. Sounds like no gunas to me.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. highest brahmam namely 'Saguna Brahmam'.

I do not know what he means by highest and lowest and the one in middle Brahman. How many types of Brahman are there? I know of only one.

Otherwise, I agree with him as well as with Salix. 'Brahman' sure has gunas, but note, important, 'Asakti' is not a guna of Brahman. That means Brahman cannot be a 'personal God'. It would not desire anything, will not require prayers, will not help any one in trouble. The person or any people will have to take care of the problems by him/her/themselves.

So, what are the 'known' gunas (my guess) of Brahman? It is eternal. It is form-free. It is unchanging. It is 'nirlipta' (anasakta, neutral to what happens in the universe). Exploding galaxies do not mean anything to it (what to talk of humans!). It constitutes all things in the universe without any exception. Like what Vinayaka said, time and space are because of it, and so is 'maya'. If I remember any other guna, I will add it here, but Brahman may have gunas that we do not know yet, so I keep my view open.

Viraja, I too am not a scholar but I am saying what I have learnt by my education and life experience.

He’s right about this: Nothing “in creation” can be devoid of gunas.
What is “outside of it [creation]”?

IMHO, Velukkudi Krishnan swami has not studied science, that is why he is talking about "outside of it'. And Salix, 'nothing in creation' will apply only if there is a creation. I do not think there is any. What we observe is only 'maya'.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Beyond form, beyond time, beyond space. Sounds like no gunas to me.

And Salix, 'nothing in creation' will apply only if there is a creation. I do not think there is any. What we observe is only 'maya'.

Right. As I see it, what appears in maya is saguna. No maya, no gunas.

I'm no scholar, but I think Velukkudi Krishnan's thinking here is restricted to the confines maya.

 

[Vinayaka]

Right. As I see it, what appears in maya is saguna. No maya, no gunas.

I'm no scholar, but I think Velukkudi Krishnan's thinking here is restricted to the confines maya.

AFAIK, it's not a scholarly treatise, but a mystical one.

 

[Viraja]

I do not know what he means by highest and lowest and the one in middle Brahman. How many types of Brahman are there? I know of only one.

Otherwise, I agree with him as well as with Salix. 'Brahman' sure has gunas, but note, important, 'Asakti' is not a guna of Brahman. That means Brahman cannot be a 'personal God'. It would not desire anything, will not require prayers, will not help any one in trouble. The person or any people will have to take care of the problems by him/her/themselves.

So, what are the 'known' gunas (my guess) of Brahman? It is eternal. It is form-free. It is unchanging. It is 'nirlipta' (anasakta, neutral to what happens in the universe). Exploding galaxies do not mean anything to it (what to talk of humans!). It constitutes all things in the universe without any exception. Like what Vinayaka said, time and space are because of it, and so is 'maya'. If I remember any other guna, I will add it here, but Brahman may have gunas that we do not know yet, so I keep my view open.

Viraja, I too am not a scholar but I am saying what I have learnt by my education and life experience.
IMHO, Velukkudi Krishnan swami has not studied science, that is why he is talking about "outside of it'. And Salix, 'nothing in creation' will apply only if there is a creation. I do not think there is any. What we observe is only 'maya'.

That is a very good description of Brahman, which very much aligns with what I had in mind about this entity. Nevertheless, as you describe this brahman, sure it adds attributes to this entity. May be the only self-imagined attribute that he does not act or react, nor responds to pleas, is what makes him nirguna, then.

 

[George-ananda]

Your thoughts, if any?

As a student of Advaita Vedanta there is pure attribute less consciousness called Nirguna Brahman. It is a pure state of sat-cit-ananda (being-awareness-bliss).

Although then I wonder from where does this creative aspect that projects the universe rises? Anyone?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Although then I wonder from where does this creative aspect that projects the universe rises? Anyone?

Maya.

 

[ameyAtmA]

I am not a scholar and don't expect thus to participate if the discussion changes to very scholarly, quoting texts and verses, etc.

But that said, I nevertheless wonder if anything in nature can ever be 'devoid of gunas'.

Read this from a recent Velukkudi Krishnan swami lecture:

"Parabrahmam without gunas is a non-existent entity. There is no pure brahmam. The highest is the saguna brahmam.
If you take anything in creation or even fathom anything outside of it, you can see that nothing transcends the boundaries of so-called 'guna'. For example, fathom a flower - you'll feel its softness for touch, that is some specific-colored, has/has not fragrance, etc, etc. These attributes that we call 'guna' are present even for atomic particles. Atoms are depicted as 'round', 'moving here and there', etc. So anything in the entire Universe has 'gunas'. Thus, there is no such thing called 'pure parabrahmam'. 'Shuddha Sattwa' is the highest mode of guna and characterizes the highest brahmam namely 'Saguna Brahmam'."

- Velukkudi Sri U.Ve.Krishnan Swami in an upanyasa.

Your thoughts, if any?

Namaste

A few bullet points.

• I have always been saying that ParaBrahman is a repository of infinite potential which consists of infinite kalyAN guNa - be they in dormant state, as potential , or active state. This is why the world is within the 3 gunas as a by-product, but ParaBrahman is not.
• SaccidAnanda Brahman being without guNas means beyond guNas, transcending guNas. Not under the control of guna and mAyA, rather, the controller of guNa and mAyA. MAyA-pati,

• For the past 2+ days , before this thread was posted, my Bhagavad Geeta has been opening to this shloka :

BG 10.8 aham sarvasya prabhavo | mattah: sarvam pravartate |
iti matvA bhajante mAm budhA bhAva samanvitah: ||
I am the Origin of everything, and from Me everything originates, comes into being.
Those who have strong faith and devotion towards Me, understand and worship Me like this.

• Everything from an ant to BrahmaDev are within the guNas
• Vishuddha sattva is only adopted by ParaBrahman via His YogamAyA in order to be seen by us
• Hence ParaBramh' is PadmanAbh / KamalnAbh - all originates from and is absorbed back into His nAbhikamal
• ParaBramh' is Keshava, Ke-Sha-Va , the Lord of Ka (BrahmA) and Isha (Shiv)
• ParaBramh' is KRushNa , not only because He attracts all beings in the Universe, but because He sucks all existence back into the nAbikamal @ pralay. A bhAgvat kathakar once said that Garga Muni named the baby ParaBramh as KRushNa in Nanda-Yashoda's goshALA , because of the above, because Garga muni knew Who He was.

• ParaBramh' is HRushikesha because He is the RULER of the guNas & senses, He is holding the reigns of the 4 horses Meghapushpa Bahalak etc. Thus He is BEYOND the guNas, and certainly not WITHIN them.

So, flower having guNas is expected, and flower is in the world.
The infinite potential of ParaBramh' which implies a repository of infinite kalyAN guNa are actually transcendental, as in , He is not TRAPPED by the guNas. Those are His means to make only a small subset of the infinite potential possibilities manifest.

 

[George-ananda]

Maya.

Right, but why would Maya arise from an attribute-less state? Where does this will to experience finite consciousness arise?

 

[ameyAtmA]

Right, but why would Maya arise from an attribute-less state? Where does this will to experience finite consciousness arise?

It is always there. In potential form. Since it is potential, and not active, it is the Sacchidananda that is beyond, transcending, and in complete control of the potential repository of creative attributes.
That is how we have to understand the "nirguNa" (beyond guNa) , which gets translated to "attributeless" . NirguNa = guNAteeta, not that they do not exist in the repository.

The focus of advaita vedanta is on individuals not getting involved in the attributes => mukti. Keep them in your pocket. Do not implement them.

Apart from that, please see post #10 - if at least a part of it makes sense to you.

Those who follow Advaita Vedanta -- it is a means to an end. Do you have to follow it to the letter?
My understanding of it or the intention behind it , is to see that Brahman transcends the 3 guNas.

The idea is for the sAdhaks to not get trapped by and swayed by mAyA. Just ignore Her!

 

[SalixIncendium]

Right, but why would Maya arise from an attribute-less state? Where does this will to experience finite consciousness arise?

I like what Swami Vivekananda has to say about this:

"To ask why Maya came is a useless question, because the answer can never be given in Maya, and beyond Maya who will ask it?"

The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 7/Inspired Talks/Wednesday, July 24 - Wikisource, the free online library
​

On this side of enlightenment, there is no answer to why maya arises. On the other side, there is no question.

 

[George-ananda]

It is always there. In potential form. Since it is potential, and not active, it is the Sacchidananda that is beyond, transcending, and in complete control of the potential repository of creative attributes.
That is how we have to understand the "nirguNa" (beyond guNa) , which gets translated to "attributeless" . NirguNa = guNAteeta, not that they do not exist in the repository.

The focus of advaita vedanta is on individuals not getting involved in the attributes => mukti. Keep them in your pocket. Do not implement them.

Apart from that, please see post #10 - if at least a part of it makes sense to you.

Those who follow Advaita Vedanta -- it is a means to an end. Do you have to follow it to the letter?
My understanding of it or the intention behind it , is to see that Brahman transcends the 3 guNas.

The idea is for the sAdhaks to not get trapped by and swayed by mAyA. Just ignore Her!

Thank you for that.

Here's something I found on-line from the Advaita Vedanta perspective:

Brahman is One infinite consciousness. What does infinite consciousness 'do'? It needs to do nothing but it chooses to experience artistic expression as the mysterious consciousness has a mysteries creative aspect.


So I'm thinking I should think of Maya (part of the creative aspect) as an inherent aspect of Brahman.

 

[George-ananda]

I like what Swami Vivekananda has to say about this:

"To ask why Maya came is a useless question, because the answer can never be given in Maya, and beyond Maya who will ask it?"

The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda/Volume 7/Inspired Talks/Wednesday, July 24 - Wikisource, the free online library
​

On this side of enlightenment, there is no answer to why maya arises. On the other side, there is no question.

I accept what Swami Vivekananda said and I feel it is consistent with something else I found on-line:

Brahman is One infinite consciousness. What does infinite consciousness 'do'? It needs to do nothing but it chooses to experience artistic expression as the mysterious consciousness has a mysteries creative aspect.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No maya, no gunas.

Beg to differ. I will take help of science here. Gunas exist.

That is a very good description of Brahman, which very much aligns with what I had in mind about this entity. Nevertheless, as you describe this brahman, sure it adds attributes to this entity. May be the only self-imagined attribute that he does not act or react, nor responds to pleas, is what makes him nirguna, then.

Again to science. Brahman acts, Brahman responds - 'spooky action at a distance', but still remains changeless - because these are the 'inherent' gunas of Brahman. Whatever happens, Brahman will continue to do so.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I accept what Swami Vivekananda said and I feel it is consistent with something else I found on-line:

Brahman is One infinite consciousness. What does infinite consciousness 'do'? It needs to do nothing but it chooses to experience artistic expression as the mysterious consciousness has a mysteries creative aspect.

If it has qualia to choose, how can it be nirguna?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Beg to differ. I will take help of science here. Gunas exist.

Please explain on how science demonstrates gunas exist in the absence of time, space, and causation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Although then I wonder from where does this creative aspect that projects the universe rises? Anyone?

Start with a premise, and you have questions.
Start with no premise and you have answers.

Right, but why would Maya arise from an attribute-less state? Where does this will to experience finite consciousness arise?

Simple. From where 'maya' arises has gunas. 'Maya' is the effect of these gunas. So, when Brahman is there, 'maya' too will be there.
Which consciousness? That of Brahman or that of humans. Do not compare apples and oranges.

Please explain on how science demonstrates gunas exist in the absence of time, space, and causation.

That is a different state of Brahman, non-existent; about which we do not know anything at the moment.

"sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛdi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā ll" Nasadiya Sukta, RigVeda

 

[ameyAtmA]

If it has qualia to choose, how can it be nirguna?

It is nirguNa means it is beyond guNas.
NirguNa = nirlipta = untouched by guNas. Unlike the realm of mAyA - trapped in guNas.

It transcends guNa, but on the other hand, with Its own YogamAyA as a medium the finest of attributes can be cherry-picked to paint a picture.