Advaita: How does Nirguna Brahman transforms into Saguna Brahman?

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, that is right. I have always said that Brahman is none other than 'physical energy'. I always add 'physical' lest people make it into any kind of divine energy'.
Nirguna Brahman will never have any desire or will power. That will be a 'Vikara' (short-coming, contamination, impurity).
With 'Saguna Brahman', the normal God-like things are possible. Shiva, Rama, Vishnu, Krishna, Durga. They are 'Saguna'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You do not need multiple books. One book is sufficient and if we have to pick only one, that would be the Upadesha Sahasri. If this book does not help, other books will not help, either.

There is one more book which discusses these matters clearly in scholarly manner. "A History of Indian Philosophy" by Surendrnath Dasgupta (Chapter X, The Sankara School of Advaita, about 100 pages), available from Dasgupta (Internet Archives).
(Just a click would take you to the exact chapter.)

 

[SalixIncendium]

So, if I'm understanding correctly, Completely Nirguna is a Brahman without a will of its own, just a naturally occurring "phenomenon" if you'd call it that and Maya is just as natural. Nirguna/Saguna cross concept would be the concept that Nirguna is a formless Brahman with a willpower to become Saguna (presumably by inducing Maya upon itself?)

Nirguna is Sanskrit for "without qualities/attributes." Saguna is Sanskrit for "with qualities/attributes."

Nirguna Brahman isn't "a Brahman." It is Para Brahman, which the supreme Brahman...ultimate reality. There is only that. Everything else, including Maya and Saguna Brahman, is an appearance in Nirguna Brahman. Saguna Brahman is none other than Nirguna Brahman with qualities and attributes. At least this is the the perspective of the Advaita Vedanta philosophy.

I'll also add that @Aupmanyav, by his own admission, has a rather unique perspective on Brahman that isn't commonly found in mainstream Advaita Vedanta, but is ever bit as valid.

 

[Viswa]

Brahman is none other than 'physical energy'. I always add 'physical' lest people make it into any kind of divine energy'

There is no such thing as 'physical energy'. Also not a 'divine energy'.
Just Brahman.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There is no such thing as 'physical energy'. Also not a 'divine energy'.
Just Brahman.

Then people ask 'What is Brahman?' What cannot be explained exactly, is not truth.

 

[Viswa]

Then people ask 'What is Brahman?' What cannot be explained exactly, is not truth.

Silence is the only explanation.

Also in early days, Brahman is never meant to explain to people who seek life. Upanishads were taught/pointed only to people who wanted to seriously know the truth and ready to die to know the truth. Life is not their goal, only knowledge, and only to them it is imparted. In many Upanishads, it has been said that only to end rebirth. (It is against your theory, but I'm sorry, Upanishads says so ). For normal people, Indra was taught as God (like Yehweh and Zeus and etc.) and no word of Brahman uttered (except in Vedic rituals). Only a True Brahmana, and a truly serious person who is ready to renounce everything to know truth, are eligible to know (and only they can understand) the truth.

Who said "what cannot be explained exactly, is not truth?". Even Mandukya points, "Avyavaharyam Agrahyam etc." for "Advaitam".
If truth can be explained exactly, then there never needed 108 Upanishads, just 1 Upanishads which contains 1 sloka would have been enough. Every Upanishads is only a pointer upon Brahman, that it cannot be explained exactly, but moksha can be reached with many methods. "SAT-CHIT-ANANDA" is also a Form of Brahman (a Snake), but the true form of Brahman which is there all time. "SAT-CHIT-ANANDA" form is bound to time (it is not timeless), but it is the true form present all time. And, the four Mahavakhyas, is not really truth, but the truly effective Manthras to reach Kaivalya Moksha (which I think said in Suka rahasya Upanishad). Kaivalya Moksha is the sole Aim of all Upanishads, taught in different methods to reach it (never clearly explains what is Brahman), as every knowledge is limited/bound/along with time.

Even, not God, can explain exactly what is Brahman in words, but it doesn't mean there is not truth. Na iti-Na iti, is said to every explanation/word/phenomena/identity given about Brahman.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Silence is the only explanation.
Na iti-Na iti, is said to every explanation/word/phenomena/identity given about Brahman.

Beg to differ. Things have changed now and we have come to know some of the properties of Brahman.
Don't you accept that Brahman is eternal, all-pervaiding, changeless, formless, etc.? Then, are we not trying to describe Brahman?
Do I always need a quote from a book or a person to declare what I believe? Can there be no new views? Should we become as stagnant and acquiesce to untruth as other religions do?
The work of sages is our guide (Vedas, Brahmanas, Aanyakas, Upanishads). We are grateful for that. But that is the 'start point' and not the 'end point'.
Each generation will add new knowledge to it.
Freedom from doubts/unanswered questions is Moksha. That is enlightenment, nirvana, jnana, deliverance or whatever you call it. Moksha has nothing to do with birth and death. We live only once. There is no rebirth except according to what Buddha stated - we are born anew each moment.

 

[Viswa]

Don't you accept that Brahman is eternal, all-pervaiding, changeless, formless, etc.?

Nope. I don't accept.
It is pointing the supreme being (One and Only Atman) for enlightenment, but not Brahman itself. This pointer, is a means to attain enlightenment, but not the truth itself. I don't even accept calling Brahman as Existence.
The Eternal, All-pervading, formless, etc., is the supreme being in everyone's heart (The One and Only Atman). If one calls it as Brahman, and merge the jiva in it, one attains Moksha. But, the truth is, Brahman cannot be called as Eternal-formless too.

"Brahman - Neither Atma Nor Anatma".

Even Mind is called Brahman, Even food is called Brahman, Even Prana is called Brahman - these are all said in Upanishads and Brahma Sutras. Why called as Brahman, is to attain it. If one call "Mind is Brahman", and continuously repeates it, one attains the true power of Mind.
But, those are all "Prakriti" (Nature, Not-Atman, Not-Self). If one calls "Mind is Brahman" and dwell in it, it can only gives power limited to Mind, but not Enlightenment.
But, if one calls "Sat-Chit-Ananda is Brahman", "Atman is Brahman", "Aum is Brahman", "Eternal-formless is Brahman" - one attains enlightenment. The word Brahman used there only as a oar (the true oar to reach anything), like the word Brahman used in vedic rituals to pray/attain anything upon the deity (Indra/Varuna/etc.). Whatever object is made as goal, if one assigns it to the word "Brahma" to that, then one becomes that. But the truth cannot be truly described as anything (even Existence).

Things have changed now and we have come to know some of the properties of Brahman.

If it is useful for enlightenment, then properties can be 'suited' for a means to enlightenment (even a real Guru does that to student), but not for 'living'. . Let things change, let Brahman shall be described for joy or for increasing followers, but the true essence of Vedanta is to end Knowledge/description and enlighten.

Then, are we not trying to describe Brahman?
Do I always need a quote from a book or a person to declare what I believe? Can there be no new views? Should we become as stagnant as other religions?

Never Upanishads tried to describe Brahman. It only pointed for enlightenment by understanding truth. It's only the play of schools, tried to describe Brahman in their own way. If one wants joy in describing about Brahman in many ways they understand, sure - why not!, and by describing those one may also enlighten. But, the truth is not that described.

Freedom from doubts/unanswered questions is Moksha.

Yup. And so, the question "What is Brahman?" is an unanswered question, and freedom from that question itself is Moksha.

Moksha has nothing to do with birth and death. We live only once

We never live only once. Enlightenment is not to put a rebirth to "US", but to put an end to Karmic effects of Mind-Body. We never lived anytime, nor we died. But, the Mind and Body, does many actions and experiences reactions of such actions (that is called rebirth), and putting an end to "action and reaction of Mind-Body" is Moksha. Jivan Mukti, is putting an end to action of Mind. Videha Mukti, is end of the reactions of previous actions of Mind-Body. World engages as a reaction for the action of Mind, and when mind's actions ends, then the world's action (atoms,molecules,etc.,) also ends when all reactions of actions are experienced.

If one loves the reactions of World, then the mind's action cannot come to end, no Moksha. If one hates the reactions of world, even then the mind's action cannot come to end, no Moksha. Only when the mind never disturbed by the reactions of the world, Moksha happens to the mind. Until then, Mind continuously acts and flows to it's own reactions (which is experienced in world), and when body dies, mind takes another body to experience it's reactions which done as an action in previous body.

After Jivan Mukta, Mind never acts afresh desiristic, only the reactions are felt.

The work of sages is our guide (Vedas, Brahmanas, Aanyakas, Upanishads). We are grateful for that. But that is the 'start point' and not the 'end point'.
Each generation will add new knowledge to it.

There is no starting point and ending point. Never matters new sayings or old tape-recorded Upanishads. All the purpose of Spirituality/Vedanta/Buddha/Krishna/Jesus/Allah/etc., is Moksha (end to rebirth) - not for living. Any new discovery about Brahman is welcomed, but if it is only for joy of living/expressing and not for Moksha, then it's only an excess spider web - spanned and caught. Every new discovery or knowledge is useless, if the mind's actions cannot be subdued.

But, all those discoveries are only new paths. Those discoveries are not the truth/goal, but might only lead o the truth, which cannot be described.

Do I always need a quote from a book or a person to declare what I believe? Can there be no new views?

Not at all. You may have any new view to believe. But, any view/belief, help to attain Moksha and may only lead to truth, but not the truth itself.

So, mind wonders, if every belief is only a path to Moksha, but not the truth itself, then how come I shall believe upon anything?
And to answer this serious question of Mind, Guru appears and gives a path to Enlighten
Note - Sorry for couldn't K.I.S. (Keep It Simple), even though I am Stupid.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Eternal, All-pervading, formless, etc., is the supreme being in everyone's heart (The One and Only Atman).
Never Upanishads tried to describe Brahman.
Yup. And so, the question "What is Brahman?" is an unanswered question, and freedom from that question itself is Moksha.

"Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma" (All things here (are) Brahman) - Mandukya Upanishad. You don't accept that. But I am an 'Advaitist'. Our views are different and will never merge. You believe in a supreme being, I do not believe in any such entity, not even in the existence of soul.

You might have read Brahma-sutras.
"Janmadyasya yatah"
(Brahman is that) from which the origin etc., (i.e. the origin, sustenance and dissolution) of this (world proceed).
Janmadi: origin etc.; Asya: of this (world); Yatah: from which.

"Answer to the enquiry of Brahman is briefly given in this Sutra. It is stated that Brahman who is eternally pure, wise and free (Nitya, Buddha, Mukta Svabhava) is the only cause, stay and final resort of this world. Brahman who is the originator, preserver and absorber of this vast world must have unlimited powers and characteristics. Hence He is Omnipotent and Omniscient. Who but the Omnipotent and Omniscient Brahman could create, rule and destroy it? Certainly mere atoms or chance cannot do this work. Existence cannot come out of non-existence (Ex nihilo nihil fit). The origin of the world cannot proceed from a non-intelligent Pradhana or Prakriti. It cannot proceed from its own nature or Svabhava spontaneously without a cause, because special places, times and causes are needed for the production of effects." Chapter-I Section-1

"The Upanishads define Brahman. Let us see again what kind of thing It is. What kind of thing is Brahman? Satyam, jnanam, anantam. This is what the Taittiriya declares regarding Brahman." The Forest of the Brahma Sutra - An Analysis of the Brahma Sutra - Chapter 1
This is just one example. If all such sayings are collected, that will be a thick book.

Brahman, IMHO, is not totally unknown, although we also do not have perfect knowledge about it. The problem arises when the question "From where Brahman arose?" comes up. The only possible answer is that Brahman is not bound by existence or non-existence. Wordly things are are bound by existence. Brahman can appear as well as disappear. Krishna also says that in Chapter 2:

"avyaktādīni bhūtāni, vyakta-madhyāni bhārata; avyakta-nidhanāny eva, tatra kā paridevanā."

All things are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation?

To be continued after a break ..

 

[Viswa]

Thank you for the pointing out by spending time.

Ye

"Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma" (All things here (are) Brahman). You don't accept that.

"Everywhere here is no doubt Brahma". True. No doubt that here is Brahman. I accept what it is said in Chandogya (that verse I think said in Chandogya - I googled it now). What I say is, there is no thing as "Physical energy", no thing as "Maya", No appearance of Brahman, Just Brahman everywhere.

The Universe you see, is nothing but Brahman, there is no thing as "Universe". Brahman is not Formless. Also the Universe you see, is not forms/Appearance of Brahman, but Brahman itself. The power, which is called as Maya, is also Brahman.
What is called as Atman, is also Brahman. What is called as Ananda, Vijnana, Manas, Prana, Food - is all Brahman. They are not appearance of Brahman, but Brahman itself, and there are no other things to identify as "Maya, Ananda, Food, Atman, etc.," - Just Brahman.

So, how can be said Brahman as Formless or forms or Existence or Non-existence or Eternal or Non-Eternal or Time bound or Time-less or Conscious or Unconscious or etc.,?

Only Brahman Everywhere, nothing else. Nothing can be said about Brahman, and all here is nothing but Brahman - no other identification, brahman never appears or disappears as things, rope never appears as snake - no snake - only rope/brahman.

Bhagavat Gita also says "Brahmarpanam etc.,".

Our views are different and will never merge

If you feel so, we may end this conversation here. There happens to be a differentiation of Brahman from Mind-Body-etc., and so I tried to show that "there is no differentiation, only Brahman, and no things as Mind-Body-etc., no appearance of Mind-Body-etc., all sensed-thinked-felt-experienced-known is itself Brahman but not appearance of Brahman, and the truth about Brahman cannot be known".

There is difference between Atma and Not-Self, there is difference between Self and Mind-Body-etc., But there happens no differentiation in Brahman like Advaitins claim ( as Brahman and Maya, as Nirguna and Saguna), happens no appearance no disappearance of Brahman (like Advaitins claim as true), but only Brahman. Mind-Body-etc., is all not appearance of Brahman, but Brahman itself. In Upanishads, it is only said as "Atman is Formless,etc.," but not to Brahman which Advaitins misunderstood and tried to differentiate "Brahman from Maya" - tried to say "Brahman is formless in Truth by differentiating all these as 'Appearance of Brahman' but not true", whereas all these are truly Brahman but not Appearance.

I can also point some verses in Kena Upanishad Chapter 2, but it's of no use for you.

Also, you said, they are 'starting' but not 'ending', but Brahma sutras chapter 1 says different like "It can be known only by scriptures, and says Anandamaya-Vijnanamaya-Manomaya-etc., IS Brahman (not said as Appearance of Brahman)". Again, these are all of no use to communicate to an "Advaitin" like you. Isn't it sir?

The thought of "Brahman is Formless,etc.," aids to Enlightenment, like the thought of Buddhists as "Shunya - anatma - etc".
But, both are just paths to truth, but not truth itself. Truth is not in forms or formless, Truth is not as Existence or Non-Existence".

It is the Atman (indweller) - formless, eternal, real self, existence. If you want to fix Brahman as Formless,etc., - most welcome, and attain enlightenment in fixing this as TRUTH. But, by fixing this, and then letting the mind loose in pleasure instead of reaching the formless-Indwelling Atman - is a delusion.

I can also show some verses In Gita and in Katho Upanishad, where it is strictly said to control the reigns, and make it to reach "Formless Atman/Purusha", instead of letting it loose to seek sensual pleasures.

In the name of "Advaitin", if the mind wants anything it want to do, then it's upto you.

Paths never matter. I was never here to say "there is only one Path, or Pathless Path or Pathless Land or etc.,". I only tried to show that, some advaitins claim "This is Truth - Brahman is formless" and arguing with another schools of thought, and arguing with Buddhism, or spreading the words like "Only Advaita school knows the Truth - blah blah blah", is the thing that I point out.

Formless and Forms, Existence and Non-existence, Sat-Chit-Ananda and Maya,
Nirguna and Saguna, Atman and Anatman, Eternal and Not-Eternal, Static and Ever-changing, Purusha and Prakriti, and Self and Not-Self, etc., all these are paths to fix the mind for enlightenment, but not the truth itself. That is my view.

Thanks for the beautiful conversation.

I would be very happy to see you enlightened in the name of "Advaitin" - not the other way, because enlightenment is the purpose of every schools and Vedanta, and I feel you might not disagree with what I said about Moksha in previous reply.

Take Care.

 

[Viswa]

Note - Sorry for couldn't K.I.S. (Keep It Simple), even though I am Stupid.

This Stupid found a way to K.I.S.

"Only Atman/Self can be known and Kaivalya Moksha can be attained by Shravana-Manana-Nidhidhyasana upon Upanishads. But Brahman, Beyond the Known and the Unknown, no one can know it even though it is not an unknown (Unknown means something exists which is not known - but Brahman is not that too)".

Known is like Prakriti and the Unknown is like Atman/Purusha, beyond those (and all this dualised identification - Atman and Not-Atman - truly) is Brahman.

That's why, Brahman is not described mostly in scriptures like Ashtavakra Gita or Bhagavat Gita or Yoga Vasishta, only Self/Atman/AUM/Purusha/Formless/Infinite/Nirguna/Indweller/All-pervasive/SAT-CHIT-ANANDA is pointed out, as only that can be known as highest, and knowing it is truly enough.

Namaste.