Which existed first, saguna brahman or nirguna brahman?

[The Crimson Universe]

In Gita ch.14, v27, Krishna says that He is the 'pratisthaanam' (basis/foundation/abode) of Brahman.

Now does that mean, Krishna existed first (as the ISKCONITES claim) and then from His toe (as explained in padma purana) the nirguna brahman emanated? ... or is it the other way round, i.e. from Nirguna brahman came the saguna brahman?

I know there are many sects within hinduism and each of them has their own way of explaining this verse, like the dualists says that Krishna existed first and then from him came Nirguna Brahman, whereas Advaitins would disagree with the claims of the dualists.

What do you guys think?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I think Nirguna Brahman cannot perceived in vyavaharika, therefore, Saguna Brahman exists as form in this transactional reality.

 

[Vinayaka]

In something that is ever existent, there is no 'first'. Where is the start on a circle?

 

[The Crimson Universe]

In something that is ever existent, there is no 'first'. Where is the start on a circle?

By 'start' i meant, in the beginning of creation.

 

[Vinayaka]

By 'start' i meant, in the beginning of creation.

There is no beginning of creation. That my friend, is an Abrahamic concept. Time is not linear in the Hindu cosmological view.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In Gita ch.14, v27, Krishna says that He is the 'pratisthaanam' (basis/foundation/abode) of Brahman.
Now does that mean, Krishna existed first (as the ISKCONITES claim) and then from His toe (as explained in padma purana) the nirguna brahman emanated? ... or is it the other way round, i.e. from Nirguna brahman came the saguna brahman?

What do you guys think?

Krishna is 'Nirguna' Brahman (like all other things in the universe, since nothing else exists - even you are, I am). The gunas have been added by us in our ignorance. How ISKCON people explain it does not affect my view.
Pratishtha: Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit
The translation is not 100% correct. "Pratishthā aham" makes 'pratishthāham", that is something like "I am the Brahman which exists' (Aup's version).
Aup does not have a 'saguna Brahman'. His is always 'nirguna'. But Aup is a strict advaitist. ISKCONites also are advaitists with a slightly different spin.
So, I read it like this:
"I am the Brahman which exists, which is immortal, imperishable, eternal; and I am the ultimate of dharma and happiness." BG 14.27

 

[shivsomashekhar]

In Gita ch.14, v27, Krishna says that He is the 'pratisthaanam' (basis/foundation/abode) of Brahman.

Now does that mean, Krishna existed first (as the ISKCONITES claim) and then from His toe (as explained in padma purana) the nirguna brahman emanated? ... or is it the other way round, i.e. from Nirguna brahman came the saguna brahman?

In my opinion, Gita 14.27 is a poorly crafted verse. The author should have done a better job. In his commentary, Shankara provides two possible meanings -

1. Power and the possessor of power are non-different. Or,
2. Brahman here means lower (Saguna) Brahman

To your question, Nirguna or Saguna - neither is created from the other as that would be a logical fallacy.

 

[ameyAtmA]

In Gita ch.14, v27, Krishna says that He is the 'pratisthaanam' (basis/foundation/abode) of Brahman.

Now does that mean, Krishna existed first (as the ISKCONITES claim) and then from His toe (as explained in padma purana) the nirguna brahman emanated? ... or is it the other way round, i.e. from Nirguna brahman came the saguna brahman?

I know there are many sects within hinduism and each of them has their own way of explaining this verse, like the dualists says that Krishna existed first and then from him came Nirguna Brahman, whereas Advaitins would disagree with the claims of the dualists.

What do you guys think?

I request you to put nirguN and saguN on the shelf for a while.

This is my understanding:

1. Look at the original root of the sanskrit word Bramh : vastness, infinite, limitlessness

What is fundamental to (pratishThA of) this vastness , limitlessness, infinite presence?
the superconsciousness, the purest chaitanya.

Shri KRshNa Purushottam ParamAtmA is saying, "This chaitanya is Me"
Everything else (sarvam khalu-idam Bramha') including the property of omnipresence and omniscience belongs to, and stems from this most fundamental prime Chaitanya.
Chaitanya is omnipresent. So omnipresence it its property.

So BG14.27 says --- 'Chaitanya is IT, that is Me, that is what I am'

This verse is resolving the question : What is the most fundamental source of existence?

2. Same can be said about the verse in chapter 13 - which raises the question : where should I put the paranthesis? " (anAdimat) param Bramha" ? OR "anAdi (matparam) Bramha" ?

Either way you place the paranthesis, the understanding that Chaitanya is fundamental to the vastness and all existence, resolves this also.

3. Same can be applied to understanding the word Purushottam in BG chapter 15.

Beyond the jad (gross matter) and chetan (subtle jivatma) prakruti ,
=> IS the uttam purush, Purusottam ,
=> IS the most fundamental and purest Chaitanya,
=> IS the pratishThA (foundation, fundamental principle, source) of this vast Bramh,
=> "IS ME" says Shri KRshNa in BG 13,14,15 and all over BG

Conclusion:
KRshNa explains His identity as the most fundamental Chaitanya of all while explaining to Arjun.
Chaitanya speaks to Arjun and the rest of us in the form of KRshNa.
The form that ordinary mortals think is 'KRshNa', is one of the best forms of Chaitanya
-----

FYI - on-going now is Purushottam Maas (Sept 18 - Oct 16) - the special 13th lunar month of Purushottam Shri KRshNa , which appears every 2-3 years (roughly). You have asked this fundamental question in Purushottam Maas.

|| Jai Shri KRshNa ||
|| Om Shri PurushottamAya namah: ||
|| Om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ||
KRshNAya VAsudevAya haraye ParamAtmane |
praNata klesha nAshAya GovindAya namo namah: ||
SacchidAnanda rUpAya vishwat-patthyAdi hetave |
tApatraya vinAshAya Shri KRshNAya vayaM numah: ||