mnkbdky

According to the Upanishads Brahma is asanga. Asanga is the concept that Brahma is "beyond the region of negation." He is completely unrelated to anything, he transcends the universe and is perfectly self-sufficient. God is the ultimate aseitic, he is that being which has his being a se. The Indian Christian theologian Brahmabandhab Upadhyay takes the Indian concept of asanga and attempts to reconcile it with the Thomistic concept of the Christian God by employing a distinction that was made between Nirguna Brahma and Saguna Brahma in Sankara's advaita vedanta.

In doing this, however, Brahmabandhab runs the risk of making the highest nature of God impersonal. Brahmabandhab attempts to reconcile this problem by making the distinction between God's necessary (pramarthika) and contingent (vyavaharika) properties. He does this by exhorting those who have misunderstood nirguna as meaning an impersonal, abstract and unconscious Being. He contends, rather, that nirguna only refers to those qualities or properties belonging to Brahma that are necessary. That is, nirguna are the essential properties of God, they are his necessary essence. He then states that creation is not a necessary property of Brahma. Brahma need not create necessarily. Rather, creation is something that is contingent, and therefore, God is not necessarily related to creation.

It should be noted that there is a difference between the statement, 1) "Necessarily, God is related to creation"; which says that there is no possible world in which God is not related to some creation, creation and God exist necessarily side by side from all eternity with God always already sustaining it, and 2) God is related to creation necessarily, which simply states that if God were to create then he would be needed to sustain his creation. It is the former which is being denied here.

The conclusion Brahmabandhab draws is, that since a guna is a property that restricts or restrains something and thereby forces the one who has them into pain and pleasure due to either attraction of aversion that it is perfectly appropriate for a Christian to refer to God as nir-guna--without guna--because Brahma in his essential properties remains uneffected by his creation. He is neither compelled to create, but does so out of his loving will; nor is he obligated to sustain his creation, but again does so out of his loving will. Succinctly, nirguna for Brahmabandhab means that God's essential nature is--or necessary properties are--not effected or necesarily related to anything. God is completely unrelated or asanga.

For those of you who are familiar with Sankara's advaita vedanta, tell me what you thing think of his interpretation of nirguna Brahma.

Does it work?

Are there Vedic passages that you believe contradict his interpretation?

Do you think Sankara would have austerely anathematize him?

What are you thoughts?

Thanks,

-- mnkbdky

Philosoft

This is more appropriate in Non-Abrahamic...

Grizzly

And since another version off this post is already here, I am going to lock this one.