10

According to Shankaracharya, Ishvara, the world, and Saguna Brahman, are ultimately unreal. Only Nirguna Brahman is real.

But what does it mean to be Nirguna or "without qualities"? Something that has no attributes or qualities is something that doesn't even exist, because it cannot be proven.

The Destroyer
  • 31,363
  • 14
  • 169
  • 343
Ikshvaku
  • 22,130
  • 2
  • 39
  • 116
  • Neti Neti, Sachchidana. – Pandya Aug 23 '17 at 00:35
  • 5
    Million dollar question! – Rakesh Joshi Aug 23 '17 at 10:04
  • Because Nirguna Brahman is described in words as "SatChidAnanada". "Sat" means existence. – The Destroyer Aug 23 '17 at 10:26
  • 6
    So you are suggesting that provability is a pre-requisite for existence ? Isn't this position absurd ? Provability naturally involves the subject - as in Who proves. If you and I or anybody for that matter cannot prove something, it doesn't mean the conjecture itself is invalid. Even in Mathematics which is strictly logical we see theorems and conjectures getting proved hundreds of years after they have been proposed. What then to speak of the Unmanifest which by definition is "beyond mind intellect and speech" ? – Lotus Aug 23 '17 at 10:43
  • Taking up your first statement, please note that while "mithya" is often loosely translated as "unreal", it does not imply non-existence. It only means that it is not the way it appears to be. Please read this to get clarity on what "mithya" means according to Vedanta. https://www.advaita-vision.org/origin-and-meaning-of-the-word-mithya/ – Lotus Aug 23 '17 at 11:05
  • 3
    Does "sat chit ananda" not point to a qualified Brahman? Existence, knowledge, bliss are its characteristics. – Ikshvaku Aug 23 '17 at 11:15
  • It is not a prerequisite for existence, but it is for us to understand or accept something. Otherwise, how else would we know? – Ikshvaku Aug 23 '17 at 11:17
  • That God can be saguna and nirguna is mentioned in many scriptures (many many agamas and puranas for eg) . So how can it be a million dollar question?? @RakeshJoshi – Rickross Aug 23 '17 at 17:42
  • 3
    Ramanuja and Madhva take Nirguna to mean absence of bad qualities such as: freedom from fear, death, disease, beyond suffering, etc – Ikshvaku Aug 23 '17 at 17:43
  • 1
    @Ikshvaku: It is made very clear in Vedanta that understanding Brahman is not like understanding an object. Knowing Brahman is becoming it. Brahmavit Brahmaiva Bhavati. The point here is: You seem to imply that what is beyond our senses does not exist. This position is untenable. We need to get the language precise here. Sat Chit Ananda is the "Swarupa Lakshna" of Brahman. This is not the same as Guna. In English we often mix up lakshna and guna and translate both as "quality". – Lotus Aug 23 '17 at 17:54
  • 1
    @Ikshvaku: Great! If you accept that knowing Brahman is becoming it, then the question becomes what sense perception (sight, hearing, smell etc..) do you need to prove that you exist. None. Even if all these perceptions were to stop functioning, you still continue to exist. Isn't it self evident ? Vedanta says the same is true for Brahman as well. – Lotus Aug 23 '17 at 18:02
  • 1
    @Ikshvaku: "how is a Nirguna Brahman more real than Saguna?" Who says it is more real ? "how do you experience a Nirguna Brahman" Welcome to Vedanta ! The path it suggests is Nishkama Karma ===> Antahkarana Shuddhi ===> Jnana. Many many upanishads discuss this in great detail – Lotus Aug 23 '17 at 18:06
  • 1
    I think that many people don't understand this thing. Even the statement that describes Brahman as "sat-cit-ananda" is a proof that Brahman has gunas (attributes or qualities), because sat (eternity or existence), cit (knowledge or consciousness), and ananda (bliss), are 3 gunas (qualities) of Brahman! Shankara was aware of that thing and in order to establish his view that Brahman is nirguna, which he explained as "without any qualities", he attempted to overcome the obvious contradiction with the scriptural statements such as this "sat-cit-ananda" and many other that describe ... – brahma jijnasa Aug 24 '17 at 00:09
  • 1
    ... Brahman with qualities. His attempt was to say that Brahman cannot be described with words, Brahman is "indescribable", and thus he said that scriptures do not succeed to describe Brahman at all. So in his view what we read in scripture is not at all the description of nirguna Brahman even when the scripture aimed to describe the nirguna Brahman. Thus he thinks that scripture completely failed in the attempt to describe nirguna Brahman because scripture used many words to describe it although he is "indescribable" with words! ... – brahma jijnasa Aug 24 '17 at 00:10
  • 3
    ... On the contrary, in all other systems of Vedanta which admit some diversity and qualities in Brahman, such as all the Vaishnava systems of Vedanta, acaryas explained that scriptures do not fail to describe Brahman with words and when scripture says he has qualities such as sat-cit-ananda, those are real qualities of Brahman. – brahma jijnasa Aug 24 '17 at 00:11
  • It can only be understood through penance and yoga. Existing thought frameworks cannot describe or be used to understand the nirguna bramhan. –  Aug 24 '17 at 15:22
  • 2
    You are saying that only objects having quality exists. This is arguable. But we are all clear about one thing: the reverse direction. And that feels more natural. Only what exists has (or does not have) quality. How about that? And another related question. Are you sure 'qualtity' exists? If so, what is the quality that makes it exist? – Cyriac Antony Nov 16 '17 at 09:26

1 Answers1

1

Answer to: What does it mean to be Nirguna?

Vedanta uses 'Nirguna' (without qualities) and 'Gunatheetha' (beyond qualities) as synonyms. In a practical sense nirguna means imperciptible. But, if we don't perceive something, how can we be sure that it exists, right?

Well, vedanta has a different opinion. Wisemen say anything that exists can not be perceived, and anything that is perceived does not exist. For example, you know that you exist. How do you perceive that? Obviously you know that you exist, that is, you experience that you exist rather than perceiving. However existence of many other things is perception for you. You don't experience that. It is for this very reason that vedanta teaches to trust on what you experience rather than what you perceive. The experience of self tops them all. This is why you have to find Brahman in the feeling of self first.

Source: "Who Am I" by Ramana Maharshi (I agree that it is not the kind of source you expect. But this is the source I used.)

---------------------a comment on the question------------------------------

An answer to the question in the title.

Answer to: How can Advaita Vedanta's Nirguna Brahman even exist?

You are saying that only objects having quality exists. This is arguable. But we are all clear about one thing: the reverse direction. And that feels more natural.

Only what exists has (or does not have) quality.

How about that? And another related question. Are you sure 'qualtity' exists? If so, what is the quality that makes it exist?

Cyriac Antony
  • 223
  • 1
  • 7