[Advaita-l] Is Brahman saguNa or nirguNa or aguNa?

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*



On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 18:08, kuntimaddi sadananda <
kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote:

> PraNAms
>
> Shastra says -This that you worship is not Brahman- in kena.
>
> tat eva brahma tvam viddhi, nedam yat idam upaasate!
> That is Brahman and this that you worship.
>

No problem. I already supported it. But if you want it to be tested, let me
ask some questions ?
That which is worshiped is not brahman - if it is so what about nirguNa
which is worshiped as aham ? So, that also is not brahman !!!


>
>  Scriptures repeat this five times to insure that it is not some thing that
> any sense can perceive but that because of which the senses have the
> capacity to perceive - that which is neither known nor unknown etc.


Thing perceived by senses is not brahman. OK. I don't think any one is able
to say that he sees saguNa too. If you say that we perceive him by shabda
then it is also true for nirguNa.



>
> PrakRiti is triguNaatmikam - that manifests as bhuumi raapo.. .. etc and
> apareyam .. is my higher nature - says Krishna. That Brahman is beyond
> prakRiti which has Gunas. He is nirguNa since he transcends the prakRiti.
> All worships fall in the realm of prakRiti since it involves kaaya vaacaa
> manasaa and indriyaas.
>

 Even shravaNa, manan, etc. are similar in that case.


> To take the student beyond the lower prakRit only Shruti says - it is not
> this that you worship is Brahman. To appreciate this teaching only one needs
> a chitta suddhi - says Shankara in his commentary on B.Sutra 1.
>

Every teacher says  same thing about his teachings.

I'm talking in this way because without providing proof you are just
repeating words. This is not enough for any opponent.