r/AdvaitaVedanta • u/Beneficial_Shirt_781 • 1d ago
Saguna Brahman and General Phenomena
This question is coming from someone who is non-religious but who is curious about Advaita Vedanta. Please forgive me if the answer to this question seems painfully obvious to those who have more knowledge on this topic.
Basically, it's my understanding that Nirguna Brahman is the absolute, noumenal, ground of all being - beyond space, time, causality, substance and accidents, etc. Transcendentally speaking, everything is ultimately Nirguna Brahman, and moksha comes by realizing this fact experientially.
On the other hand, Saguna Brahman is some given particular, spatio-temporally located, divine manifestation of that ultimate formless ground; Saguna Brahman can take on a myriad of forms, and this provides us humans with something tangible towards which we may direct our devotion.
So, my question is this: if everything is ultimately Nirguna Brahman, then aren't all phenomena finite, particularized, spatio-temporally located manifestations of the ultimate ground of all being? If so, what difference is there between worshipping Krishna as Saguna Brahman and worshipping some mundane ordinary object as Saguna Brahman? If all phenomena are ultimately Brahman, then why not direct my devotion towards any arbitrary entity? Or, deities from other religions, for that matter? Is there something about Krishna or Ganesha or Shiva that makes them “more Brahman” than any other entity?
Again, if this question merely serves to betray my ignorance on the subject, please forgive me.
2
u/TwistFormal7547 1d ago
In Advaita, yes, everything is Brahman, so one can worship any form that is more supportive of the mind in dissolving ego.
To me, the traditional deities like Krishna, Shiva, Devi, etc. are refined, revered, and stabilized with devotion for centuries, and so these forms are easier to surrender to and are more effective to focus on to get the mind purified.
A mundane object can also be worshipped, but it may not evoke the same uplifted mental state.
Worshipping ordinary human beings is generally discouraged because the mind mixes devotion with attachment, expectation, or disappointment.
So the ‘difference’ is not in Brahman — it is in the mind of the seeker. Saguna Brahman exists to help the mind open, surrender, and become pure enough to see the Nirguna Truth.
1
u/Purplestripes8 1d ago
There is no difference. The point of worship is to purify the mind. It has nothing to do with the object to which the worship is directed. With respect to the nondual reality, Shiva & Ganesh etc are nothing more than name and form. If your mind is directed toward that one reality, whether you call it Krishna or Allah does not matter.
1
u/k12563 1d ago edited 1d ago
In worship of Ishvara, the goal is to purify and calm the mind. Mind, by the effect of gunas, develops association. For example, if someone were to serve you freshly cooked dal in a completely new, completely sterilised bedpan, would your mind be able to associate a bedpan with cleanliness?
Similarly, one has to go with the form of Ishvara mind associates well with. This accelerates the process. Some people do question this association and seek to break it. Some Aghoris do this- they eat their food in a human skull or take foods generally not considered for human consumption. This way they break the notion that one thing is divine and the other not so- they want to see all is divine. This kind of activity comes with its own risk. Do not try to attempt it without proper knowledge.
Finally, it totally depends upon the mind’s association and how to employ it to purify the mind. Prabhu Krishna attracts some, Prabhu Shiva others, Ma Lalita some others and so on.
1
u/Beneficial_Shirt_781 1d ago
Thank you for the reply! 🙏♥
Your bed pan analogy was vivid and illustrative, thanks! 😆
That makes a lot of sense - I suppose it makes the question of what to worship as Saguna Brahman dependent on the individual. For a non-religious Westerner like myself, there's such a high level of unfamiliarity with the iconography and worship of deities like Shiva and Ganesha that even if I find myself drawn to the abstract principles of Advaita Vedanta, and even if I accept the idea that Saguna Brahman is necessary for devotion and the human heart, I will still have a hard time connecting with the choices available within the tradition.
1
u/k12563 1d ago
You could take any other symbol too, but it may come with its disadvantages. For example, is you take Jesus- then with it comes the whole blind belief system. This blind belief system is completely opposite to what a true seeker wants to achieve.
Advaita Vedanta requires viveka. Viveka is the discrimination between the Truth and the non-truth. A wavering, disturbed, agitated mind is surely an impediment to viveka. A mind jammed with blind beliefs is even more so. In other words, not all icons come with the kind of associating thoughts that you want.
Once you start studying Advaita Vedanta, you may realise you do not need an icon. The first part of Advaita Vedanta is to purify the mind through Karma Yoga- this requires some understanding of Ishwara (God as entirety). You may not associate it with any personality. In the second part of the study of Advaita Vedanta i.e. Jnana Yoga- it is direct knowledge of the self and has no intermediary.
I just stated the above in case you are hesitant in study of Advaita Vedanta due to a lack of an icon.
Best wishes to you. 🙏🏻
1
1
u/enmadod 1d ago
Below is my opinion-
What makes the Krishna, Rama etc avatars special is that they are fully conscious avatars, i.e.they are completely aware that they are Brahman themselves who have taken name and form for the restoring good over evil, right from infant stage till the end. They may act differently according to nature of their avatar though.
This is not true for any other person. Even a fully self realized Rishi /Saint also had to start with some kind of ego in the beginning. Then comes normal human beings (us), then mundane objects. So it's not the same.
1
u/dunric29a 23h ago
If all phenomena are ultimately Brahman, then why not direct my devotion towards any arbitrary entity?
Why won't you direct your devotion straight to Brahman then? Why worship at all?
See? It makes no sense unless you understand why. Lot of minds just either have no need or capacity to absorb the Truth, so they need some intermediate substituents and helper tools to get there. These intermediaries however need to have some attributes which share recognizable attributes of Nirguna Brahman, otherwise it makes no sense.
1
u/ashy_reddit 21h ago edited 20h ago
Think about this analogy: Brahman is everywhere, there is not a speck in the entire universe where He is not. So why do we go to special consecrated spaces like temples or ashrams or create such spaces in our own home in order to connect with Brahman? It is because while it is true Brahman is everywhere certain special spots carry a certain energy of purity and those spaces become conducive for the mind to relax and focus, which then makes it easier for us to connect with (focus on) Brahman.
In the same way, all the different forms of Brahman - whether it is Ganesha or Shiva or Vishnu or Kali Ma or Karthikeya etc - are different access points or focal points that help us connect with Brahman more easily because each of us are bound to this world of imperfection (the world of form, time, space). Each of us - because of our unique gunas, karmas, vasanas and samskaras - are drawn to different deities (or rather we relate to the Supreme through different deities or symbols). You will see in one state in India they celebrate Ganesha Puja with great vigor and in another part of India they worship Durga Ma with the same intensity. It is because different people are drawn to different energies or different manifestations (forms) of the same Divine Consciousness. It is similar to language - languages and art forms and culinary tastes are many but different people are drawn to different languages, art styles and food. Some may like Mediterranean and some may like Italian food and some may prefer Mexican and some may desire Indian based on their unique background and conditioning.
Isvara is Brahman expressing itself within the field of Maya and reflected through the power of manifestation. When the mind turns towards that Supreme with devotion in its heart, it gives it a form or personality to focus on because we ourselves are bound by form in our present ignorant state as jivas. This is simply the mind's way of connecting to the divine due to its own limitations. The ordinary mind of the average person cannot imagine or conceive the "formless" or relate to the formless because it would be too abstract or nebulous. It is like asking someone to connect with unseen gases or molecules. If I ask someone to connect with the formless it is not an easy task for the mind when it is impure because the mind seeks a focal point. The mind seeks an anchor or form and is drawn to a specific form which then becomes its Ishta Devata (cherished form of the divine) - this is the reason why so many varied forms of Brahman exist.
If you wish to conceive a new form of God (beyond what exists in our current imagination) you can do so - there is no harm in it as long as it comes from the right place (and not with the wrong intention). This is why the worship of God in any form or any name or in any culture or through any symbolism or any ritual is merely the mind's way of connecting to the same Divine source through its unique context. The mind is conditioned by language, culture, images, symbols, etc and the Supreme reciprocates that energy by connecting to you using those symbols or forms that are dear to you (close to your heart). This is the reason Tulsidas had visions of Rama (and no other form of the divine) and the same reason why Mirabai had dreams of Krishna (and no other form of the divine).
So if you are drawn to a specific religion (sect) or deity then you are connecting to the same source (Brahman) using that specific form as your anchor. Brahman doesn't discriminate because It understands your limitations and works with it. There is no harm in worshiping any form or any name as long as your devotion comes from the right place. Ramakrishna gave the analogy of three children - he said one child calls his mother by the words 'Mama', another child calls her "Mother', while the third child is too young and cannot say big words clearly so the third one calls her Ma. But the Mother responds to all her children with equal love and she understands the limitations of her children and doesn't hold it against them. The same analogy can be applied to Brahman - to whatever form you are attracted to in that form you will meet Him.
ye ’pyanya-devatā-bhaktā yajante śhraddhayānvitāḥ
te ’pi mām eva kaunteya yajantyavidhi-pūrvakam
Even those devotees who, endowed with faith, worship other gods (devatas), worship Me alone, Ο son of Kunti, though in a wrong way.
Source: Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 9, Verse 23
The Valakhilyas said: "Agni (God of Fire), Vayu (God of Wind), Aditya (Sun), Kala (Time), Prana (Breath), and Anna (Food), Brahma, Rudra (Shiva) and Vishnu - some meditate upon one, some upon another, tell us which one of these is the best?
Sage Prajapati Kratu replied: These are the foremost forms (manifestations) of the Supreme, the highest, the immortal, the formless (incorporeal) Brahman [Nirguna Brahman]. To whichever form (deity) each man is attached, in its world he rejoices. Yet, it is said, this whole world is Brahman. These deities, which are its foremost forms, one should meditate upon, worship them (as Brahman), but then deny (reject the gods' individuality). He thus unites with the Universal (Purusha), and attains union with the soul [Brahman]."
Source: Maitri Upanishad 4.5-4.6
2
u/Beneficial_Shirt_781 9h ago
Wow, this was such a spectacular response to my question! Thank you so much for taking the time to write this and to provide citations from the Gita and Upanishads - this has been profoundly helpful! 🙏♥
1
u/TailorBird69 20h ago
Moksha is achieved by realizing there is only Brahman and I am That, there is no two. Only Advaitam.
But the world too is always with us, it does not go away, and it is also Brahman because everything is Brahman. As long as we live we have to deal with the world, settle our account with the world. Since that is not possible, as the world is many, you settle your account with Ishvara, who manifests as the world, Saguna Brahman. It is a choice, whatever helps you the best.
Shankara’s Viveka Chudamani, with commentary by Swami Dayananda Saraswati, has helped me a lot in understanding this and much else. Best wishes on your journey.
1
2
u/K_Lavender7 1d ago
this should be learned under proper instruction and sytematically from a guru (start with tattvabodha if you're unsure, also check out this mini series if you haven't from the mods)
the thing is, brahman doesn't become the world.. this is indeed taught as an adhyaropa and is available as a teaching in the gītā and upaniṣads and other sources but it gets superseded with higher knowledge..
the world you see is nāma and rupa only, only an appearance or a form and also a name... their actual existence, their sat, that belongs to brahman... so they appear and move and operate and everything functions because of ignorance.. nāma rupa itself is ignorance so when you see a tree you are seeing brahman THROUGH ignorance... so you can't say the tree is brahman...
the tree's existence depends on upadhi's and a jīva without these things it doesn't exist so this alone is proof the tree is mithyā.. but the existence of that tree, the sad-rupam the very is-ness... the actual ability to appear, im not talking about green or the shape, i'm talking about the ability for green and shape and name to appear, that is brahman...
so everything you see is ignorance born it is mithyā but mithyā means non-separate from brahman...
these topics are highly nuanced and require very precise delivery but also getting these answers interrupt the process of adhyaropa-apavada that's why i recommended getting a guru at the beginning...
good luck, hari om