A basic tenet of the Advaita
(non-dualist) Hindu philosophy of Shankara holds, “If saguna points to brahman’s
immanence, nirguna points to brahman’s transcendence. . . .
superiority should not be accorded to the nirguna mode of discourse.”[1]
Being a non-dualist, Shankara held that brahman is one, since reality or
existence is unitary, and thus brahman as existence and reality of all is
indivisible ontologically. Applying David Hume’s separability thesis from An
Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, the distinction between nirguna and
saguna can be understood as one made only by human reason, which does
not mean that nirguna and saguna are separate entities. In short,
we make the distinction; it does not belong to brahman itself. Lest it
be thought that nirguna brahman has no analogue in Western philosophy of
religion, we need only bring in Spinoza, whose nirguna-like God
is so different from the saguna-comparable Abrahamic personal deity that
both Judaism and Christianity banished his texts; Judaism excommunicated him.
The tremendous qualitative difference between saguna and nirguna brahman
can be useful to anyone trying to understand why Judaism excommunicated Spinoza,
which is not my task here. Rather, taking nirguna brahman as reality or
existence of everything, which, like Spinoza’s notion of God, itself has
awareness, I want to stress both how much this differs in kind (i.e.,
qualitatively) from both Hindu deities and the Abrahamic deity, and the more
fundamental point that brahman is One. In spite of the qualitative
difference, keeping the Hindu concept of nirguna brahman in mind while thinking
about the personal deities that are consistent with saguna brahman is
useful.
The full essay is at "Hinduism and Judaism on Deities."
1. Anantanand Rambachan, The Advaita Worldview: God, World, and Humanity (New
York: State University of New York Press, 2006), p. 90.