It is a very big misunderstanding to think that nirakara or formless God, not having idols and statues etc., must be nirguna Brahman, because it is not always so.

The formless God, worshipped and prayed to by many people who do not accept deity idols etc., is in reality saguna (attributed) Brahman because it has other attributes (except the "form"), and therefore it is not nirguna Brahman (unattributed God or God without attributes).

Note that the formless God in this case (worshipped directly by people), even though not having an attribute related to the "form", still possesses other attributes of omnipotence etc. and that portrays him as saguna Brahman rather than nirguna Brahman.

Note also that it probably was Adi Sankara who first elaborated in detail, using an elegant philosophical approach (based on the Upanisads), to consider appropriate (absolute) attributes for Brahman. He pointed out that the attribute for Brahman (God), such as omnipotence etc., had to be acceptable both in affirming the analogous and negating the opposite in relation to Brahman (as saguna).

Needless to say, any characteristic or attribute that does not conform to both - affirming the analogous and negating the opposite - should not be considered the right attribute for Brahman because by accepting it as the Brahmanical attribute could lead to ambiguities about the uniqueness of Brahman.

Let's look at a simple example of affirming the analogous and negating the opposite in relation to an attribute. Note, when people say that Brahman is omnipotent, it basically implies that Brahman has all the powers (this statement affirms the analogous) and, conversely, Brahman is not powerless in any manner (which negates the opposite). Thus it basically rules out any ambiguities that could arise (with respect to an unexpected place, time or situation) about the uniqueness of Brahmanical power, implying therefore that omnipotence is the right characteristic (attribute) for Brahman. Similarly, considering that only God or Brahman has the capacity to bestow good fortune, the name Bhagavan (bestower of bhaga or good fortune) is used for Brahman in the Gita etc.

Note also that while omnipotence etc. represent the attributes of Brahman (as saguna), according to Adi Sankara there seems to be only one essence for Brahman and that is the consciousness (which applies to Brahman as nirguna as well as saguna). Incidentally, in the Gita (Ch. 12), there is also some mention of saguna and nirguna aspects of Brahman, which are explored further in APPENDIX below and references (1) and (2). According to the Gita, Ch. 12, Nirguna (nirguna Brahman) is beyond all thought: basically infinite, transcendent unmanifested, immutable, never changing, ever One.

Furthermore, even those people who pray to and worship the formless God, such as in Arya Samaj etc., in reality are doing so in devotion to saguna Brahman and not nirguna Brahman directly. Note that by worshipping the formless God they are still praying to a God which has all other attributes except that of "form". Therefore they only seem to be rejecting the attribute of "form", whereas they still seem to accept all other attributes in God (omnipotence etc.) which are also accepted by people who worship and pray to God using idols. Incidentally, the use of an idol or a physical symbol in worship and prayer is intended to enhance the focus on Brahman with respect to a certain attribute of Brahman (Saguna). The deity idol or symbol used for worship, whatever it might portray physically, is not itself an object of worship or prayer. Moreover, whatever the symbol used in prayer or worship, the real object of worship or prayer should be Brahman alone, because only Brahman (Nirguna or Saguna) is beyond Karma (worldly influences and karmic effects), and therefore ideally suited for worship (1). Needless to say, the worldly thing, symbol or personality used during worship for deity is irrelevant ultimately and has no real and direct benefit, by itself, to the worshipper.

The worldly (secondary) benefactors and gods, being subject to karmic and materialistic influences, are temporary, and thus can only bestow temporary and worldly rewards. Brahman, on the other hand, being eternal and beyond karmic effects has the capacity to bestow eternal bliss which is considered far superior to any temporary worldly thing or reward (the Gita: Ch. 7 - V. 23). In any case, even those who want to worship the secondary symbols and worldly personalities (gods), mainly for the sake of worldly rewards (the Gita: Ch. 7 - V. 20), succeed in doing that because of Brahman only (the Gita: Ch. 7 - V. 21, Ch. 9 - V. 23, 24, Ch. 10 - V. 4, 5). Moreover, any temporary and worldly benefit or reward acquired by them through the worship of a secondary personality arises ultimately from Brahman (the Gita: Ch. 7 - V. 22), but not directly and on a permanent basis (the Gita: Ch. 7 - V. 23, Ch. 9 - V. 21). Thus for a reward of eternal bliss the devotion to Brahman in an unselfish manner is suggested (the Gita: Ch. 9 - V. 25, Ch. 10 - V. 10).

Note also that the living entities (people basically), who generally tend to use their physical faculties (mind and senses etc.), can think only vaguely about Nirguna (which is without attributes and therefore inconceivable), whereas they cannot worship or pray properly, easily and directly to Nirguna using their physical capabilities (the Gita: Ch. 12 - V. 5). Therefore the prayer and worship of Brahman as Saguna (with attributes and thus conceivable) seems easier and can be substituted in the place of Nirguna (the Gita: Ch 12 - V. 2, 6, 7).

In conclusion, God in Hinduism is Nirguna or nirguna Brahman: the Imperishable, the Infinite, the Transcendent unmanifested, the Omnipresent; the Beyond all thought, the Immutable, the Never-changing and the Ever One (the Gita: Ch. 12 - V. 3, 4). Brahman is the ultimate creator of soul and the world (the Gita: Ch. 7 - V. 6). The Saguna or saguna Brahman, which merely is a manifestation of Nirguna during creation, can be envisioned physically as the waves or ripples in Nirguna where each "unique" ripple (wave) signifies a separate attribute for Saguna. Thus the ultimate nature of Brahman is Nirguna which is also the destination for soul (the Gita: Ch. 8 - V. 12, 13). Essence of Brahman is consciousness. Moreover, essence of soul is consciousness (the Gita: Ch. 13 - V. 14) and therefore same as Nirguna (the Gita: Ch. 10 - V. 20, Ch. 13 - V. 22, 31, 32).

APPENDIX
Different schools of thought in Vedanta

Q. Why are there several Vedantic philosophies (Advaita, Dwaita, Vishishtadvaita etc.) if Brahman (God) is one?

Response:

All the Vedantic philosophies talk about one God (Brahman). The differences in these philosophies are mainly in the nature of relation of Creation to Brahman.

Brahman in Hinduism basically is one, having many names, each signifying / implying separately one or a set of different attributes, functions, phenomena -- monotheistic polymorphism. These different names associated with different attributes are even indicated in the Veda, Rig Veda etc. (1, 3). Similarly, the message in the Gita is delivered by Krishna in the name of Bhagavan.

In addition, Brahman basically is Nirguna (unattributed or without attributes), but during creation He can become Saguna (attributed or having attributes), and still, in essence, be no different from Nirguna.

The relation of Nirguna and Saguna forms of Brahman can be envisioned by considering Nirguna as a vast ocean which is completely calm, tranquil and in harmony, and therefore undistinguishable. Saguna form will be then an ocean with waves on surface.

Even though the wave seems to make the ocean appear different, it is not really so - it is still the same ocean. Moreover, the wave is no different from the ocean itself and its appearance is nothing more than the perfectly calm and undistinguishable ocean acquiring a separate characteristic (attribute), making it seem distinguishable unlike before (Nirguna). In essence the two are not different, and Saguna is just a special nature of Nirguna, during creation.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, different Vedantic philosophies, propounding the Upanisdaic ideas further, try basically to explain the relation between Creation and Brahman, even while looking at Creation differently according to different schools of thought (2, 4).

Advaita, or non-dualism between Brahman and Creation (soul etc.) (5):

According to Adi Sankara (Sankaracharya), consciousness is the essence of Brahman. Thus the ocean of infinite consciousness signifies Brahman. Note that consciousness is not an attribute of Brahman but only his essence. In addition, consciousness also is the Self (soul), implying that the Self (soul or unconditioned jiva) is in Identity with Brahman. Needless to say, according to the Advaita Vedanta not everything (human or animal for example) is same as Brahman or God, but only the pure and unconditioned soul (atma) has the characteristics similar to Brahman.

References

(1) Dr. Subhash C. Sharma, "BRAHMAN (God) in Hinduism", Feb. 24, 2004, http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/brahman.html

(2) Dr. Subhash C. Sharma, "Vaisnava philosophies of Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Caitanya, Bhaskara and Yadavaprakasa", April 24, 2004, http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/vaisnava-philosophies.html

(3) Dr. Subhash C. Sharma, "Worship and prayer according to Vedas", Feb. 12, 2007, http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/vedic_deity.html

(4) Dr. Subhash C. Sharma, "Krishna and Brahman" , Aug. 22, 2005, http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/krishna_brahman.html

(5) Seva, "Not everyone and everything is same or equal to Brahman (God) in Advaita: Brahman according to Samkara's Advaita", http://seva.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/08/not-everyone-and-everything-is-same-or-equal-to-brahman.htm
------------------------------------
By: Dr. Subhash C. Sharma
Email: [email protected]
Date: April 4, 2009

link to: Related topics by the author