Brahma Sutras

[Vaagmi]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

This is in continuation of post # 312:

2. Can a person know 'Brahman' without reading Brahma Sutra?

This question is only a restatement of question 1. As the question 1 has been answered the answer there applies to this question too. If you are ‘literate’ and can read and understand the sutras you cross that far quickly in your spiritual progress. You are enjoying the benefit of the ancestors’ hard work by reading and understanding the brahmasutras.

3. Can a person who does not believe in Brahman , for example a person like me, know Brahman? If 'yes', how? if 'no', why not, please?

If you do not believe in Brahman what are you doing here? Live your life happily and do not bother about Brahman. If you are still interested in knowing about Brahman just for the fun of it, you can still do it by ‘reading’ brahmasutras. Your understanding will be superfluous and peripheral because your mind wont let you get deep into it. It is like an atheist standing before the idol of a God in a temple and doing a namaskaram.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,



I wonder whether we can be so sure about that. If Vedas could be reduced to written form the sutras which came much later could also have been written down and preserved just as vedas have been preserved by special methods like the Gana paatam etc., So I think it has nothing to do with non-availability of script or the problem of memory load. It has more to do with the substance that was conveyed through those aphorisms. When one uses so many words and sentences, the meaning(which is the substance/content) gets attenuated or encapsulated before it reaches the target. There comes some amount of distortion in the process. The aphorisms, being about the highest truth, can not afford this flaw. So they are given with minimum words with whatever grammar was available at that time that day as tks says. It is left to the target to make out the real meaning by contemplation.

This is more or less akin to the poetry which is considered a superior linguistic form (instrument) to convey an idea. Like when Andal said கற்றுக்கரவைக் கணங்கள்.....(திருப்பாவை-11). When people asked how can a கன்று (a calf) be called a கறவை(a cow)we get the answer from the context. In paramapatham the nitya suris are always young because they are in the presence of God and so do not close their eyes for even a second. So they are called “panchavimsathi vaarshika”. And Gokulam became the paramapatham because of Krishna’s presence there and all the cows and men in the Gokulam were always young. Moreover, because they were all touched by Krishna, the God, everyday, all the cows that had calves also remained calves without ageing. Veda says He is “uthAmruthathvasyEsaana:” This is possible only in poetry and not in the prose. And what a pleasure it is when we are able to follow the exact thought process of the originator of the idea.

So I think the choice of the form (aphorism) by the sutrakara is just deliberate and not due any time related deficiency of the medium called language. They wanted us to think and ruminate and contemplate.

Dear Vaagmi ji,

Yes you do have your point which is also something I had thought about that Vedic couplets were not in Sutra format..but also the point I thought that made this difference is Vedic hymns were used on regular basis as in invocation during Yajnas etc.

On the other hand Brahma Sutra is not used as hymns in invocation.

If mental load was not really an issue here..in that case I fail to see why Panini's needed to write the grammar in Sutra format too..he could have just written a long story in prose or poem forms isn't it?

So I don't think that he wanted us to think,ruminate and contemplate..he wanted to pass down information in code like format hence the following (taken from Wikipedia)

Comparison with modern formal systems

Pāṇini's grammar is the world's first formal system, developed well before the 19th century innovations of Gottlob Frege and the subsequent development of mathematical logic. In designing his grammar, Pāṇini used the method of "auxiliary symbols", in which new affixes are designated to mark syntactic categories and the control of grammatical derivations. This technique, rediscovered by the logician Emil Post, became a standard method in the design of computer programming languages.[SUP][24][/SUP] Sanskritists now accept that Pāṇini's linguistic apparatus is well-described as an "applied" Post system. Considerable evidence shows ancient mastery of context-sensitive grammars, and a general ability to solve many complex problems. Frits Staal has written that "Panini is the Indian Euclid."

BTW on a lighter note..I was wondering..Maheswara Sutrani was given by Lord Shiva..so how do Vaishnavas study this? LOL

Just kidding...I know that Vaishnavas see everything as Lord Vishnu but I just could not resists asking you this..just for fun.

 

[Nara]

All this talk of cryptic text, ultimate truth, buried meaning, etc., are quite laughable. Like the iconoclast par excellence of Tamil rational thought said, it is all வெங்காயம். Keep peeling all the layers away, there is nothing left at the end but a lot of bad odor.

 

[tks]

All this talk of cryptic text, ultimate truth, buried meaning, etc., are quite laughable. Like the iconoclast par excellence of Tamil rational thought said, it is all வெங்காயம். Keep peeling all the layers away, there is nothing left at the end but a lot of bad odor.

Why dont you just laugh it off and not have this compelling need to say the same thing over and over again .. it seems to me you are unsure of what you assert and therefore have to keep preaching your -----fill in the blank ------------- LoL

 

[Nara]

Why dont you just laugh it off and not have this compelling need to say the same thing over and over again .. it seems to me you are unsure of what you assert and therefore have to keep preaching your -----fill in the blank ------------- LoL

Why don't you mind your own business and not tell me what I should or should not do. You did this one time before also. What is your compulsion man, grow up. ....

 

[renuka]

LOL! What is this?? வெங்காயம் fight?

வெங்காயம் can only bring tears to the eyes and not laughter.

Sravna you better come back fast to the thread....otherwise instead of Brahma Sutra Bhasya....Brahmaastra is going to be launched வெங்காயம் style!LOL

 

[tbs]

hi sravana,
next time when u give explanation abt brahma sutra....give disclamer note....just like this..those who are not believe in sankara

bhashya....dont participate in this thread...it will better for safe debate....

 

[sravna]

hi sravana,
next time when u give explanation abt brahma sutra....give disclamer note....just like this..those who are not believe in sankara

bhashya....dont participate in this thread...it will better for safe debate....

Dear Shri TBS,

People of other schools of thought would also be definitely interested in knowing the respective interpretation. So I think it is not fair to not allow those interpretations to be heard.

 

[auh]

I just googled "health benefits of வெங்காயம்" and got this https://www.google.ae/?gws_rd=cr&ei=ubNbUqnUKoWl0QXN6YH4Aw#q=benefits+of+வெங்காயம்

Seems that there is a lot more to it than just odour... but the great icon of rationality may not have had this in mind as it is his wont to make flippant comments.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Vaagmi ji,

Yes you do have your point which is also something I had thought about that Vedic couplets were not in Sutra format..but also the point I thought that made this difference is Vedic hymns were used on regular basis as in invocation during Yajnas etc.On the other hand Brahma Sutra is not used as hymns in invocation.

Renuka now you are becoming slippery. You said this "We have to remember that the Sutra format was employed when written script had not coming into usage and people relied on memory and by oral transmission hence everything appeared cryptic and coded to lessen memory load". Only in that context I said the Vedas which came earlier have more words and sentences in them than the sutras which came later and that this shows that scripting was very much in usage much before the Sutras. And if memory load was a reason even that wont stand scrutiny because there were methods found to keep the texts in tact in memory by a Ganapaatam.

If mental load was not really an issue here..in that case I fail to see why Panini's needed to write the grammar in Sutra format too..he could have just written a long story in prose or poem forms isn't it?

To me it appears that Panini was dealing with the rules of the structure of a language (meta data in the programme) where he wanted to write down the rules to be followed which were summary instructions in nature. If he says, that which can not be reduced further is the alphabet, you have to just take it and proceed further. There is no scope for further questioning it. But an athaatho can involve a very detailed discussion as to how the brahmajijnasu arrived at there. So panini chose the sutra format for conveying summary instructions. Just some thought . My understanding may be wrong.

BTW on a lighter note..I was wondering..Maheswara Sutrani was given by Lord Shiva..so how do Vaishnavas study this? LOL.Just kidding...I know that Vaishnavas see everything as Lord Vishnu but I just could not resists asking you this..just for fun.

I refuse to bite the bait. I have been warned that here to question anything about a smartha's belief or his ikon is blasphemy and will quickly bring out the super moderator's dagger. LOL.

 

[Vaagmi]

All this talk of cryptic text, ultimate truth, buried meaning, etc., are quite laughable. Like the iconoclast par excellence of Tamil rational thought said, it is all வெங்காயம். Keep peeling all the layers away, there is nothing left at the end but a lot of bad odor.

When I do not understand Latin and the Pope delivers his lecture in that language, I keep quite and look for possible translators. I do not recall from my memory my dear வெங்காயம் and present it there. May be our friend here was looking for an opportunity to elevate that third class drop out hatred opiate merchant to the level of a respectable iconoclast. LOL.

 

[Vaagmi]

post #328 has the வெங்காயம் in it. and post #330 which followed quickly has this in it:

Why don't you mind your own business and not tell me what I should or should not do. You did this one time before also. What is your compulsion man, grow up. ....

No more proof needed for calling வெங்காயம் a Tamasic food item. LOL.

 

[sarang]

True; true; true.

I would go one step further and say what confuses the whole Brahma Sutra is NOT the Sutra but the English Commentary that comes along with it.

 

[sarang]

Clever but foolish way to bring in one who cannot be named - tamil rationalist evil voldermat!

Why dont you just laugh it off and not have this compelling need to say the same thing over and over again .. it seems to me you are unsure of what you assert and therefore have to keep preaching your -----fill in the blank ------------- LoL

 

[sarang]

Other schools we have here are omelet throwing (egg and vengayam) type. Unfortunately they have neither finesse nor reverence.

Dear Shri TBS,

People of other schools of thought would also be definitely interested in knowing the respective interpretation. So I think it is not fair to not allow those interpretations to be heard.

 

[sravna]

Sutra 5: The first cause is intelligent and all knowing

Since thinking is attributed by the scriptures to the first cause of the universe, the pradhana is not the first cause referred to by them.

Noteradhana is what supplies the ingredients for cosmic manifestation. the purpose of the sutra is to show that pradhana is not the first cause of the universe. The reason why it is thought to be the first cause by some is given below.

The first cause is said to have willed the creation. The one in the beginning thought "May I be many", "Let me project world". Since pradhana is insentient it cannot have thought and so could not have been the first cause. But it is argued that since pradhana has the sattvic component it is all-knowing and hence it could cause creation. The problem with this argument is, pradhana does not have a predominant sattva but all the three gunas in equilibrium. So if knowledge can be produced due to the sattva component it can be retarded by tamas and rajas. So it will not be all-knowing.

So brahman which is all-knowing is the first cause and it causes the creation through maya.

Clarifications(My views): The brahman referred to here should be saguna brahman as thinking is attributed to brahman. Also since maya is mentioned as the power that caused the creation, both the brahman mentioned here i.e., saguna brahman and maya represent the next level of reality below that of nirguna brahman.

 

[sangom]

Sutra 5: The first cause is intelligent and all knowing

Since thinking is attributed by the scriptures to the first cause of the universe, the pradhana is not the first cause referred to by them.

Noteradhana is what supplies the ingredients for cosmic manifestation. the purpose of the sutra is to show that pradhana is not the first cause of the universe. The reason why it is thought to be the first cause by some is given below.

The first cause is said to have willed the creation. The one in the beginning thought "May I be many", "Let me project world". Since pradhana is insentient it cannot have thought and so could not have been the first cause. But it is argued that since pradhana has the sattvic component it is all-knowing and hence it could cause creation. The problem with this argument is, pradhana does not have a predominant sattva but all the three gunas in equilibrium. So if knowledge can be produced due to the sattva component it can be retarded by tamas and rajas. So it will not be all-knowing.

So brahman which is all-knowing is the first cause and it causes the creation through maya.

Clarifications(My views): The brahman referred to here should be saguna brahman as thinking is attributed to brahman. Also since maya is mentioned as the power that caused the creation, both the brahman mentioned here i.e., saguna brahman and maya represent the next level of reality below that of nirguna brahman.

Dear Shri Sravna,

It's nearly two days and your Sutra-5 does not seem to have attracted any response. I therefore thought of giving some oxygen so that this thread may get a new lease of life!

You are rather fortunate since saguna and nirguna brahmans appear to be at your will and command making you a super brahman!

The fifth brahma sutra is ईक्षतेर्नाशब्दम् (ईक्षतेः न, अशब्दम्= Not due to will or samkalpa, veda does not admit it). What Baadaraayana tries to say is that the upanishadic statements (like VI-2-1 of Chhaandogya, I-1-1 of Aitareya, VI-3 of Prasnopanishad, I-1-9 of Mundakopanishad, II-6 of Taittireeyopanishad, etc., all state, without any doubt, that the first cause or the primordial one existence or सत्ता willed, desired, thought, wanted, etc., to become many. The sāṃkhya darśana accordingly proposed the prakruti and the purusha which actively caused the creation.

Sankara is of course, required to disprove this sāṃkhya view and to establish that the one and only reality, the Brahman - who is Nirguna - caused this creation somehow. Brahmasutrakaara (it appears) brushes off all the difficulties in so doing with the short declaration "aśabdam" = not admitted by Sruti or vedas, without explaining the patent contradiction between what the upanishads state and where, in the veda/s, is the negation of such assertions to be found.

Now, it is necessary that the comments should establish, by logical argument/s, that the Nirguna Brahman somehow created this jagat, without losing its Nirgunatva. Perhaps Sankara has done this, I don't know. Hence, instead of simply getting out of the trap by saying "The brahman referred to here should be saguna brahman as thinking is attributed to brahman.", I think it will be necessary for you to delineate how Sankara wriggles out of this difficulty, unless the book by
Swami Vireswarananda concurs with your view.

I presume the other interpretations (Ramanuja, Maadhva, etc., have nothing better to offer than your own comment cited above!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

To me at least, the question you have raised is one of the most subtle aspects of advaita. On the one hand you have the nirguna brahman which is considered the only reality and not characterized by thoughts or actions and on the other hand there does exist the physical reality with the question being, how was it created?

Sankara uses the idea of maya to explain what is happening. It seems to me he is successful in solving the problem. If the physical world is an illusion and it was the result of maya which itself is an illusion I do not see any problem in physical world seeming to be existing. We have been projected by the higher reality of saguna brahman and maya. Saguna brahman and maya are the projections of nirguna brahman.

Let me clarify.I submit the thesis that something can exist without the intent of creating it. For example a side effect is a perfect example. These effects are not intended but are still produced.

Nirguna brahman is the ultimate reality and so we can logically conclude that it is everything . It cannot be really void in the normal sense of the word void. But since it is timeless it is logical to conclude that it is beyond actions or thoughts because existence of actions and thoughts would imply the need for the notion of time. Maya could just be an effect of that timeless existence without any thought on the part of nirguna brahman to create it. So it could simply just be a reflection of its existence and thus maya and time and space could exist. Since actions and thoughts exist in that relative reality we see the logical events such as the creation of the world by thought and all the actions and thoughts that happen in the space time bound version of reality itself.

So to me Sankara very coherently explains his theory by his use of the concept of maya.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

To me at least, the question you have raised is one of the most subtle aspects of advaita. On the one hand you have the nirguna brahman which is considered the only reality and not characterized by thoughts or actions and on the other hand there does exist the physical reality with the question being, how was it created?

Sankara uses the idea of maya to explain what is happening. It seems to me he is successful in solving the problem. If the physical world is an illusion and it was the result of maya which itself is an illusion I do not see any problem in physical world seeming to be existing. We have been projected by the higher reality of saguna brahman and maya. Saguna brahman and maya are the projections of nirguna brahman.

Let me clarify.I submit the thesis that something can exist without the intent of creating it. For example a side effect is a perfect example. These effects are not intended but are still produced.

Nirguna brahman is the ultimate reality and so we can logically conclude that it is everything . It cannot be really void in the normal sense of the word void. But since it is timeless it is logical to conclude that it is beyond actions or thoughts because existence of actions and thoughts would imply the need for the notion of time. Maya could just be an effect of that timeless existence without any thought on the part of nirguna brahman to create it. So it could simply just be a reflection of its existence and thus maya and time and space could exist. Since actions and thoughts exist in that relative reality we see the logical events such as the creation of the world by thought and all the actions and thoughts that happen in the space time bound version of reality itself.

So to me Sankara very coherently explains his theory by his use of the concept of maya.

Dear Shri Sravna,

I give here the relevant verse from aitareyopaniṣad:

आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीन्नन्यत्किंचन मिषत् स ईक्षत लोकान्नु सृजा इति।
(ātmā vā idameka evāgra āsīnnanyatkiṃcana miṣat sa īkṣata lokānnu sṛjā iti )

A rough translation (my freelance) of this verse will be :—

In the beginning ātmā was the only one there, no other thing was (there): seeing this it (the one and only) ātmā desired "may I create the worlds".


The other upaniṣadvākyas also echo a similar idea. Prasnopanishad says:

स ईक्षांचक्रे । कस्मिन्नहमुत्क्रान्त उत्क्रान्तो भविष्यामि कस्मिन्वा प्रतिष्ठिते प्रतिष्ठास्यामीति ।

(sa īkṣāṃcakre | kasminnahamutkrānta utkrānto bhaviṣyāmi kasminvā pratiṣṭhite pratiṣṭhāsyāmīti |)

He (the original one) thought: how can I make it so that when something exists I exist in that something and when that something ceases to exist, I will be unable to exist in that something?

All these clearly shows that the upanishadkartas envisaged the original single entity (which corresponds to the Nirguna Brahman— and not the saguna brahman, who comes only for the humans afflicted by māyā —did will, desire and even make involved planning like what the Prasnopanishat proposes. So, the question of saguna brahman will not arise when the original single reality alone existed and had not created anything else.

If, as you say, it is to be understood as a side-effect, then it is necessary that there is some third agency which gives rise to this side effect. So, the Nirguna Brahman will lose its advaita status. Added to this, when the Brahma Sutrakaara says "aśabdam" = not admitted by Sruti or vedas, it is necessary to know whether Sankara concludes that all these upanishads make mistake or else how he "whitewashes" the obvious contradiction. The supposition of side-product of Nirguna Brahman, effect of māyā, etc., will not be proper because we are here dealing with the stage before the first creation itself.

How Sankara tides over the difficulty is needed to be detailed here, according to me.

 

[Nara]

How Sankara tides over the difficulty is needed to be detailed here, according to me.

This challenge nobody has overcome, not even Adi Shankara. BTW, consider Krishna, i.e. God, lecturing BG to Arjuna, how could this be explained by advaitees without tying themselves into logical knots of brahmastra proportions?

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sravna,

I give here the relevant verse from aitareyopaniṣad:

आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीन्नन्यत्किंचन मिषत् स ईक्षत लोकान्नु सृजा इति।
(ātmā vā idameka evāgra āsīnnanyatkiṃcana miṣat sa īkṣata lokānnu sṛjā iti )

A rough translation (my freelance) of this verse will be :—

In the beginning ātmā was the only one there, no other thing was (there): seeing this it (the one and only) ātmā desired "may I create the worlds".


The other upaniṣadvākyas also echo a similar idea. Prasnopanishad says:

स ईक्षांचक्रे । कस्मिन्नहमुत्क्रान्त उत्क्रान्तो भविष्यामि कस्मिन्वा प्रतिष्ठिते प्रतिष्ठास्यामीति ।

(sa īkṣāṃcakre | kasminnahamutkrānta utkrānto bhaviṣyāmi kasminvā pratiṣṭhite pratiṣṭhāsyāmīti |)

He (the original one) thought: how can I make it so that when something exists I exist in that something and when that something ceases to exist, I will be unable to exist in that something?

All these clearly shows that the upanishadkartas envisaged the original single entity (which corresponds to the Nirguna Brahman— and not the saguna brahman, who comes only for the humans afflicted by māyā —did will, desire and even make involved planning like what the Prasnopanishat proposes. So, the question of saguna brahman will not arise when the original single reality alone existed and had not created anything else.

If, as you say, it is to be understood as a side-effect, then it is necessary that there is some third agency which gives rise to this side effect. So, the Nirguna Brahman will lose its advaita status. Added to this, when the Brahma Sutrakaara says "aśabdam" = not admitted by Sruti or vedas, it is necessary to know whether Sankara concludes that all these upanishads make mistake or else how he "whitewashes" the obvious contradiction. The supposition of side-product of Nirguna Brahman, effect of māyā, etc., will not be proper because we are here dealing with the stage before the first creation itself.

How Sankara tides over the difficulty is needed to be detailed here, according to me.

Dear Shri Sangom,

The only entity which thought could still be saguna brahman because it is not afflicted by maya and hence would consider it self as the only reality just as the jivas rid of maya consider themselves one with the ultimate reality. That is, there is only one reality according to advaita and when not afflicted by maya that is what is comprehended. Saguna brahman is a lower reality only because it is uses maya and therefore said to act and think. But since it is itself not afflicted by maya it sees itself as the only reality. So I see no problem here.

The existence of saguna brahman and maya as a side effect is said in the sense that something automatically happens without the intention of making it happen and thus not affecting the status of nirguna brahman.. Thus the reality of saguna brahman exists with the existence of nirguna brahman. But nirguna brahman is the ultimate reality because brahman that thinks and acts cannot be timeless. But it is saguna brahman with maya that is responsible for the creation of the world.

Though I am not sure what exactly is the explanation of Sankara for your question, the above explanation I think is consistent with advaita.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

The only entity which thought could still be saguna brahman because it is not afflicted by maya and hence would consider it self as the only reality just as the jivas rid of maya consider themselves one with the ultimate reality. That is, there is only one reality according to advaita and when not afflicted by maya that is what is comprehended. Saguna brahman is a lower reality only because it is uses maya and therefore said to act and think. But since it is itself not afflicted by maya it sees itself as the only reality. So I see no problem here.

The existence of saguna brahman and maya as a side effect is said in the sense that something automatically happens without the intention of making it happen and thus not affecting the status of nirguna brahman.. Thus the reality of saguna brahman exists with the existence of nirguna brahman. But nirguna brahman is the ultimate reality because brahman that thinks and acts cannot be timeless. But it is saguna brahman with maya that is responsible for the creation of the world.

Though I am not sure what exactly is the explanation of Sankara for your question, the above explanation I think is consistent with advaita.

Dear Shri Sravna,

I have been under the impression that you hold the "saguna brahman" as a kind of 'projection' of the "nirguna brahman" in so far as the consciousness of ordinary human beings - tainted by māyā - perceive to be. But your present explanation appears to change this "projection" status and makes the saguna brahman as an entity on its own right and this therefore raises one of the two following eventualities:—

1. The "nirguna brahman" somehow creates or gives birth to a "saguna brahman": if this is accepted, we come to the point that the nirguna brahman was, after all, not completely nirguna but has some "guna/s" or characteristics which enabled IT to so create a "saguna brahman", for no apparent reason or purpose except to make explanation of advaita on the lines you have given!

2. It becomes a dead-end for advaita to proceed anywhere from a first cause which is completely "nirguna" and this compels one to 'invent' this sagunabrahman proposition and to justify it 'somehow'.

In either case, the logical strength of the whole advaita argument becomes weak. Even if Swami Vireswarananda's book does not give Sankara's arguments/commentary, I feel it is necessary that you give the entire remarks from that book.

I have a source book in Malayalam, which does not follow or give any one commentary, but analyses the Brahma Sutras in an independent way and it also brings out some of the flaws in the different kinds of arguments. Hence I am unable to read or give Sankara's arguments. Otherwise I would have.

 

[sangom]

This challenge nobody has overcome, not even Adi Shankara. BTW, consider Krishna, i.e. God, lecturing BG to Arjuna, how could this be explained by advaitees without tying themselves into logical knots of brahmastra proportions?

Shri Nara,

By the time advaitins come to the stage of BG, they have māyā and "saguna brahman" (which again manifested as Krishna, they can easily assert) to explain away BG. But it is noteworthy that Sankara omits to comment on some crucial slokas of BG! Most probably many hindus are not aware of all these nuances; the caste system with the brahmin exclusivity might have helped a lot to keep such inconvenient points under wraps.

 

[renuka]

But nirguna brahman is the ultimate reality because brahman that thinks and acts cannot be timeless. .

Dear Sravna,

Being beyond Gunas as in Nirguna does not translate as being not able to "think" or "act".

That would make Nirguna Brahman sound like an Inert entity(Jada)..which I feel is not what Advaita is trying to convey.

The problem is we humans think and act the human way that is through our senses..but we have no idea about the mechanics of Nirguna Brahman at all..so something we do not know about...we can not say that It does not "think" or "act".

What say you??

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Dear Shri Sravna,

I have been under the impression that you hold the "saguna brahman" as a kind of 'projection' of the "nirguna brahman" in so far as the consciousness of ordinary human beings - tainted by māyā - perceive to be. But your present explanation appears to change this "projection" status and makes the saguna brahman as an entity on its own right and this therefore raises one of the two following eventualities:—

1. The "nirguna brahman" somehow creates or gives birth to a "saguna brahman": if this is accepted, we come to the point that the nirguna brahman was, after all, not completely nirguna but has some "guna/s" or characteristics which enabled IT to so create a "saguna brahman", for no apparent reason or purpose except to make explanation of advaita on the lines you have given!

There is a logical reason for saguna brahman to exist. I hope you accept the proposition that for a timeless entity thinking and acting does not make sense. But since it is timeless it can be said to be the ultimate reality. I am repeating the point I made earlier by saying that the ultimate entity represents everything and so nirguna does not mean nothing as you make it out to be. A feature or characteristic such as beauty or intelligence makes sense only in space and time and it does not make sense in something timeless. It makes sense to view a timeless reality differently from our physical reality where no guna need exist but still be complete. I think only in that sense nirguna needs to be understood and not as empty or void.

It makes logical sense to think of such a timeless entity as nirguna brahman as the first cause. But we know that the physical world exists from our own consciousness. Since nirguna brahman is beyond thoughts or actions there should have been some other entity that should have been the cause of the physical world. The concept of saguna brahman as naturally coming out of nirguna brahman and creating the physical world makes sense. Saguna brahman and the physical world it creates are still illusory from the point of view of nirguna brahman and such an existence so is not ultimately real. You can see that from what is said about self realized soul which becomes one with brahman experiences nothing but the ultimate reality and is in fact the ultimate reality.