[Advaita-l] SAGUNA BRAHMAN AND NIRGUNA BRAHMAN (No.6). Prof VK Ji's post

[V Subrahmanian]

SAGUNA BRAHMAN AND NIRGUNA BRAHMAN (No.6): (24th July) in FB

 One of the beauties of Hinduism is that it teaches us that, while God is
infinitely higher than ourselves, He is also infinitely near to us. He is
nearer to us than our hands and feet. He is the Soul of our souls. This
concept of immanence is the strongest point of Sanatana Dharma. He is the
one that survives in us from childhood to adulthood and through old age,
from birth, as the I that we talk of  when we refer to ourselves (7th
shloka of Dakshinamurthi ashtakam of Shankara). He is neither the body nor
the senses, nor the mind nor the ego, nor the intellect; He is the  I  that
is none of these, but is far distant from anything that we can call ours in
a related manner like spouse, issue, wealth, possessions and so forth (1st
shloka of Advaita-pancharatnam of Shankara). He is the ever-present witness
to all our experiences. He is really our Atman. He is Brahman.  He is the
One Reality beyond which there is none.  Brahman and Atman differ, if at
all, only in our approach. Atman is the name given to the highest Reality
if we seek one such within ourselves. Brahman is the name given to the
highest Reality if we seek one such in the universe. The greatest
revelation of the Upanishads is the essential identity between Brahman
(also denoted by the word paramAtman) and Atman (also known by the word
jIvAtman, or the soul) as revealed by the grand mystic pronouncements
called the mahAvAkyas of the four Vedas.  Once the identity is established,
the two terms become interchangeable and it makes no difference whether we
speak of the Absolute of the Upanishads as Brahman or Atman.

But even though Godhead is so near to all of us, it is very difficult to
realise Him. This is because we have to cease to be ourselves before we can
know Him as He is.  The difficulty in this concept is the fact that God is
both transcendent and immanent. The immanence aspect is inbuilt into the
concept of Atman and the transcendence aspect in the concept of Brahman.
The scriptures, particularly the Upanishads and the Gita share with us
their dilemma in having to describe both these aspects simultaneously.
They adopt one of two alternatives. On the one hand they use the
superlatives of all the qualities they can think of:
it is smaller than the smallest, bigger than the biggest, it is that which
is supreme, than which there is nothing higher, than which there is nothing
more minute, than which there is nothing more comprehensive
(Mahanarayanopanishad).
He strides the entire universe, He is the purest of the pure, most
auspicious of all that is auspicious, the God of Gods, the Imperishable
Father of all Beings.  (Preliminary shlokas to Vishnu Sahasranama).
On the other hand they use negation of all the finite things that we are
capable of expressing:
whatever cannot be indicated by speech but that motivates all speech, that
is Brahman; whatever cannot be seen by the eyes, but by which the eye sees,
that is Brahman; not that which is worshipped  (Kenopanishad);
neither internal consciousness nor external consciousness nor both; not a
bundle of consciousness either; not the conscious One nor the non-conscious
One; cannot be perceived, cannot be related, cannot be handled, cannot be
attributed, cannot be indicated, nor can it be an object of thought
(Mandukyopanishad)
When the scriptures use negatives like these we should not take them to
mean that Brahman is just a complete negation. It only means that our
finite expressions can never do full justice to the infinite grandeur that
is God, that God is wholly other than what we know in the world. He is the
unifying principle behind all creatures.  He is the canvas on which we
shine as painted pictures.