saguNa, nirguNa brahman and Shankara

[anand hudli]

On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Sankar Jayanarayanan wrote:

>
> The concept of Saguna Brahman was probably introduced into advaita after
> Shankara.
>
> [..]
>
> Is there really such a clear difference between Saguna Brahman and Nirguna
> Brahman in advaita?
>
>
  I don't think SaguNa Brahman was introduced after Shankara. Consider
  what Shankara says in his Brahma suutra bhaashhya (1.2.14)

   nirguNamapi sadbrahma naamaruupagataiH guNaiH saguNaM upasanaarthaM
   tatra tatra upadishyate...

   Even though Brahman is nirguNa, yet It is instructed as possessing
   qualities of name and form, ie. saguNa, for the purpose of meditation
   by various texts.

  Shankara clearly uses the word saguNa. But the question is does he use
  it in the sense of a personal God or as merely a symbol, such as AUM,
  for aiding meditation? In the fourth chapter, third section of the
   bhaashhya, he talks about meditation on the saguNa brahman where
   the term means a symbol such as AUM. But coming back to the suutra
   1.2.14 above, he continues :

     sarvagatasyaapi brahmaNa upalabdhyarthaM sthaanavisheshho na
     viruddhyate, shaalagraama iva vishhNoH...
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

     It is not contradictory to assign specific places to Brahman,
      which is Omnipresent, just as it is (not contradictory to
      think of ) VishhNu as residing in the Shaalagraama.
     (The shaalagraama is a sacred stone in which VishhNu is said
      to be present. As such, it is universally worshipped by
      devotees of VishhNu regardless of their affiliations.)

   The use of the simile of the presence of VishhNu in the shaalagraama
   suggests that Shankara wants to associate saguNa Brahman with a
   personal God as well.

   Further, in the same bhaashhya Shankara, while dealing with
   Bhaagavata view, agrees that meditation on God or naaraayaNa is in tune
   with the Vedas and  SmR^itis.


> -Kartik
>

 Anand

>From  Thu Aug  8 16:47:54 1996
Message-Id: <THU.8.AUG.1996.164754.GMT.>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 16:47:54 GMT
Reply-To: kstuart at mail.telis.org
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ken Stuart <kstuart at MAIL.TELIS.ORG>
Subject: Re: saguNa, nirguNa brahman and Shankara
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199608081559.KAA26546 at silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello,

On Thu, 8 Aug 1996 10:59:43 -0500, anand hudli
<ahudli at SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU> wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Sankar Jayanarayanan wrote:
>
>>
>> The concept of Saguna Brahman was probably introduced into advaita after
>> Shankara.
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> Is there really such a clear difference between Saguna Brahman and Nirguna
>> Brahman in advaita?
>>
>>
>  I don't think SaguNa Brahman was introduced after Shankara. Consider
>  what Shankara says in his Brahma suutra bhaashhya (1.2.14)
>
>   nirguNamapi sadbrahma naamaruupagataiH guNaiH saguNaM upasanaarthaM
>   tatra tatra upadishyate...
>
>   Even though Brahman is nirguNa, yet It is instructed as possessing
>   qualities of name and form, ie. saguNa, for the purpose of meditation
>   by various texts.
>
>  Shankara clearly uses the word saguNa. But the question is does he use
>  it in the sense of a personal God or as merely a symbol, such as AUM,
>  for aiding meditation? In the fourth chapter, third section of the
>   bhaashhya, he talks about meditation on the saguNa brahman where
>   the term means a symbol such as AUM.

Om is not a symbol.

You can read the writings of many sages that mantric words are not
different from what they point to, eg Shiva and the mantra " Om Namah
Shivaya" are not different.

A similar concept to that of Logos as described in the Gospel of John
in the New Testament....


Cheers,

Ken                         <*>
kstuart at mail.telis.org

"The Dow that can crash is not the eternal Dow." - Lao Stuart