-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Saguna and Nirguna Brahman
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
I very much doubt it, although most anything that is conceivable will statistically be believed by someone out there.
Whether any or either of them "counts" as Brahman is very much in the eyes of the beholder, IMO. Strong arguments can be made for Nirguna being "more Brahman" than Saguna, for Saguna being more significant or more noteworthy than Nirguna (who is, after all, by definition undetectable and in some sense inconsequential), and probably other combinations that I do not think of right now.
But it seems to me that above all, part of the very premise that sustains those concepts is that Nirguna _is_ Saguna and vice-versa. They just manifest differently.
Last edited:
No. Yes. No.
The are the same.
Saguna, lit. with attributes.
Nirguna, lit. without attributes.
Nirguna Brahman is the source of everything, ineffable, indescribable, unknowable except to the knower, having no form or anything tangible or imaginable. An abstract view of God. It is not nothing, but it is not something.
Saguna Brahman is God with tangible attributes... When Vishnu incarnates in the world, Shiva as the lingam/cosmic light. What we think of as God.
how can god incarnate into the world; when god "is" the world, whether pantheist or panentheist? can anything exist apart from itself?
Changing form.
I don't know if I understood the question well.
An incarnation would not be apart from Brahman, at least under an Advaitan understanding, now would it?
I don’t understand why one would suggest one is adverse to the other. Saguna Brahman is simply Nirguna Brahman manifest in maya.
Saguna Brahman is identical to Nirguna Brahman just as the Atman is identical to Nirguna Brahman.
Check local listings.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
There are no two (or more) Brahmans, there is only one. In the unmanifested form, it is 'nirguna'. In the manifested form it is 'saguna'. A rock is 'saguna' Brahman.
A nice question. All Hindus do not have one view. Some view humans and other living things (animals, vegetation) as creations of Brahman. Others do not make any distinction and consider all things as 'That' (living or non-living). The latter are a minority. I belong to this minority. I consider all things (living or non-living) to be Brahman and none other. This is known as 'Advaita' (non-duality). Therefore, I do not accept the existence of God/Gods/Goddesses, and am a strong atheist Hindu.
It would be different. It violates the 'oneness' (in view of certain people) - the incarnation and everything else, which also is nothing other than incarnation/Brahman as per 'advaita'.
Last edited:
ajay0
Well-Known Member
Prajñanam brahma - Brahman is pure consciousness ( Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)
Brahman is pure consciousness as the Vedas point out. Nirguna Brahman is pure consciousness of an impersonal nature, while God as Saguna Brahman and the jivatman or soul are pure consciousness of a personalised nature, with the Jivatman in bondage due to karma. This bondage, when hacked off through spiritual exercises and meditation, results in the soul or jivatman being purified of karma and regaining its original state as pure consciousness.
Nirguna Brahman is impersonal , having no personal attributes. Saguna Brahman is personal having attributes.
They are not adverse to each other.
Paramahamsa Yogananda states in this regard, "The word 'God' means the manifested, transcendental Being beyond creation, but existing in relation to creation. Spirit existed before God. God is the Creator of the universe, but Spirit is the Creator of God."
Here spirit stands for Nirguna Brahman, while God stands for Saguna Brahman.
In the yogic philosophy, the Shivalinga as Saguna Brahman is considered the first form to arise when creation occurs, and also the last form before the dissolution of creation.
The Kashi Vishwanath temple considers the Shivalinga as representing a huge pillar of light.
Interestingly, as per the Shaivite monotheistic religious sect called the Prajapita Brahmakumaris, the form of the Shiva linga denotes God as a point of light, and who is known as Jehovah, Allah, Ahura Mazda in other religions.
I have written more about this in this thread....
Interesting correlation between God and light in major world religions...
so then the question arises, did nirguna brahman create saguna brahman? did the unconditional create a conditional?
in my understanding consciousness is without form, or unconditional; so then it is infinite and without definition, without attributes. energy in its fundamental state is also unconditional, or non-uniformed, formless.
saguna brahman definition, or attributes, like the idea of man in the image of god from genesis 1:27, or the universe for that matter, arises from creating. in this case its consciousness creating contrast in it's energy vibration
what i believe is that nirguna brahman exists with the ability, potential to vibrate at different levels; which create contrast and attributes within itself. this difference in contrast creates forms, attributes; which are still brahman
the image is created by the impression of love onto light in vibrational differences on the first day of creation. this would be aum and the pillar of light?
Aum (ॐ) is the vibration by which the Supreme Spirit brings all things into manifestation. It is the Holy Ghost of the Christian Trinity.[ref]The New Path, by Swami Kriyananda. Chapter 20, “Twenty-Nine Palms”[/ref]
Paramhansa Yogananda has explained that everything — all matter, all energy, all thoughts — exists in Aum.[ref]The Essence of Self-Realization, by Paramhansa Yogananda. Chapter 16, “Ways in Which God Can Be Worshipped.”[/ref]
all matter, all energy, all thoughts are AUM. this would agree with the kybalion, alchemy and hermeneutics. this would be the mind, body, spirit complex.
Last edited:
"They" are neither complimentary nor adverse. Nirguna Brahman exists without qualities in Paramartika and is said to be imperceivable in Vyavaharika. Nirguna manifests with qualities in Vyavaharika as Saguna Brahman to facilitate realization of Brahman in Vyavaharika.
"They" (unless you are using the pronoun in the genderless singular) is incorrect. There is one Brahman.
so its one thing having two facets?
Essentially, yes.
Rubellite Fae
Yakṣī
I would say that Saguna Brahman has a twinge of maya. Qualities are the first necessity to shift from being paramatman to believing we are individual atman. And, in order for us to understand the unqualified divine we must first think of the divine as having qualities--because we see qualities everywhere in this maya filled human experience.
Maya can be seen as bad because it blocks us from true understanding, but it can be seen as good because it allows us to understand what we can at our own pace.
Maya can be seen as bad because it blocks us from true understanding, but it can be seen as good because it allows us to understand what we can at our own pace.