The concept of God or Gods? [Archive]

Shuddhasattva

03 June 2012, 10:39 PM

Namaste

Please keep in mind that there is no unified perspective on this question in the Sanatana Dharma. In fact, it is a subject of much debate between the different sects, to little fruit.

That said...

Brahman is roughly equivalent to the Western philosophical concept of panentheism (as contrasted with pantheism). Pantheism = god is everything. Panentheism = God pervades/is everything, yet is also beyond - transcendent).

The material universe, including space and time, are Brahman, but Brahman is more than the material universe.

Now let's look at the deities...

Firstly, we must recognize that Hindu theology has changed a great deal over the past 3000~ years. The Vedas, the oldest written scriptures were, before being committed to writing, oral traditions. We cannot date them.

The Rg Veda, the eldest, describes 33 major gods - Indra, Prajapati, 8 Vasus, 11 Rudras and 12 Adityas.

The gods are generally held to be manifestations of Brahman; anthropomorphized representations of natural forces though themselves beings in their own right as well.

The Vedas are composed of 4 parts:

Samhitas - this is the main body, consisting of mantras/hymns. The other three are commentatorial additions which came later.
Brahmanas - Associated with a particular school of Vedic study (shakha), these commentaries were mainly focused on ritual, but also included philosophy and information about the Gods.
Aranyakas - These are essentially specialized brahmanas regarding rituals that couldn't be performed within the confines of civilization - Aranyaka means 'from the wilderness.' Also associated with particular shakhas.
Upanishads - philosophical essence of the Vedas, nominally associated with particular shakhas but practically more universally accessible.
The Upanishads laid the groundwork for Vedanta to emerge. Vedanta means the 'goal of the vedas.' It is in the Upanishads that we first see Vedanta, and the Vedantic theology.

For a variety of reasons, the gods worshiped by Hindus nowadays are not Vedic gods, but Vedantic ones, though often drawn from aspects of Vedic gods. Vishnu of Vedanta bears as much or more resemblance to Varuna of the Vedas than the Vishnu of the Vedas, although there are some passages in the Vedas regarding Vishnu which presage his current status. Shiva is present in a prototypical form in the Vedas as Rudra(s). Brahma as Prajapati.

The Upanishads gave birth to the Vedanta-sutras. This is the age of the darshanas (philosophical views, of which there are considered to be six which are astika - in line with the vedas. Others, such as Buddhism and Jainism, are nastika - out of line with the Vedas, and therefore out of the fold of the Sanatana Dharma).

These six are:

Mimamsa - Focus on ritual and orthodoxy, anti-mystical
Vedanta - Focus on philosophical essence and mysticism
Samkhya - Dualistic philosophy of purusha and prakriti
Yoga - Building upon the samkhya philosophy into a system of practice, adding an additional tattva (Ishvara)
Nyaya - Logic
Vaishesika - Atomism

These six are no longer distinct as separate schools of thought. Vedanta subsumed within itself the other 5.

Vedanta itself broke down into various sects based on:

which deity was to be regarded as Supreme, ie the full manifestation of Brahman
which philosophy was to be followed (monistic or dualistic, and variations thereof)
I felt that explaining all of this was necessary to properly contextualize. Depending on which school of Vedanta one subscribes to - the Gods can be said to be real individuals, with lineage, etc., from a literal reading, or as representations of principles, aspects of the Universal Self - ie, raw divinity clothed in culturally appropriate, anthropomorphized form so that the Self is revealed to the self. A range of other interpretations between these poles are also present.

I personally believe that the Gods are 'real' entities who are aspects of the partite reality of Brahman - this or that principle - all deities are equally Nirguna Brahman (the Unmanifest Transcendent), with the primordial pair (Shiva & Shakti, Radha & Krishna, Vishnu & Lakshmi, etc.) being Saguna Brahman (full manifestation of Brahman).

A view that may be helpful to you is the practical nature of deity worship. When one worships a deity, one is cultivating the qualities of that deity, particularly when this worship becomes internal, and non-dual in nature - that is to say, one identified with the deity as oneself, or as a vital part of oneself. This is one of the primary reasons given by Sri Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita as to why worship of a personalized God is more expedient than worship of the impersonal absolute. But the two need not be a contradiction at all. Realization of Saguna Brahman is also realization of Nirguna Brahman - the two being only semantic distinctions for sake of explication. Brahman is partless.

In some of the mystical traditions of Vedanta, the body itself is seen as a microcosmic reflection of the universe, with the body housing in its subtle forms constellations of deities. The deities, collectively, compose the Self, representing its various parts though its ultimate nature is partless.

This is the view I personally adhere to.

I hope this is helpful to you. If you would like more information on any of these points, or clarification, please do not hesitate to ask. There are many on this forum more knowledgeable than I.

Namaste

wundermonk

04 June 2012, 01:11 AM

Do you particularly subscribe to any one school of thought about gods yourself or is it a mixture of different parts?

Me personally? I am more a philosophical Hindu rather than a theological Hindu, if that differentiation makes sense.

The point is that whether one God exists or multiple Gods exist or one God is subservient to another God, whether that one God is Brahma or Shiva or Vishnu or whether these Gods are real or imagined is completely irrelevant to me.

The role of religion is that it should encourage spiritual progress and inner peace. Dharmic religions score high on this front via the freedom they provide to devotees, their philosophy and their vast amount of sometimes contradictory scriptures. Different strokes for different folks. I will NOT impose my perception of the Divine on the other.

Hence, I am philosophically a Hindu.

shiv.somashekhar

04 June 2012, 01:51 AM

I'm very clueless, so my apologies in advance.

One thing I'm confused on is the concept of god.

I currently consider myself an Atheist in the sense that I don't believe in a personal and conscious god in the way Abrahamic religions describe.

However, I am spiritual in many ways and I see Brahman as being very likely.

What is Brahman essentially - is Brahman everything ie the cosmos and everything in it?

Are the various other gods such as Shiva, Kali, Lakshmi etc all parts of Brahman?

The way I am trying to fathom it, is that the different gods are either taken literally Or as metaphorical symbolising parts of existence of a whole. Is that train of thought accurate or way off?

Thank you and Namaste.

The definition of Brahman will depend on who you ask. While on the outside, Hinduism may appear to be one homogenous religion, that is not the case. Hinduism consists of countless, varied and contradictory belief systems. There are innumerable scrptures and quite often, the same scriptural text is interpreted in wildly different ways by different groups.

The most common definition of Brahman is derived from the Advaita school, but it would be incorrect to take it as the standard Hindu definition.

devotee

04 June 2012, 02:14 AM

Namaste mradamas,

As you are an atheist, it would be hard for you to accept a God unless that conforms to scientific logical tests. I will give you Advaita's point of view which appears to me the most logical explanation of everything that Is :

a) Everything is nothing but Consciousness. This "everything" includes even the space and even anything which is unmanifest. If you critically examine how even the tiny particles in the atomic structure "know" how to behave as per laws of the universe, you will have to agree that these seemingly non-living things too are not without consciousness.

b) The Reality which is Consciousness, has four different states. There are two states where it appears as "many" i.e. our manifest universe and the subtle world before birth and after death. We belong to these states (actulaly the first waking state) There is a state which is the controller, origin and end of the first two states. This state is God-state and is known by various names with form and even without form by people of various paths.

c) There is fourth state of the reality which is the origin and end of the three states described above. This state is beyond all mental concepts but this is the real "reality". The first three states appear and disappear on the fourth like waves on the sea or the pictures on cinema-screen due to action of MAyA (illusory power of Brahman). This state is known as Turiya and is the witness to all the three states all the time.

d) All of the above are nothing but "AUM" (Sound) which has been heard by the Yogis at higher spiritual level when the heart-chakra is activated. Anyone can hear it.

e) Illusory nature of existence can be easily verified if we see the things as we see them and as they really are e.g. A wall of stone appears completely solid to us but if you see the atomic structure, you find that it is almost emty space. So, what actually is space is seen as solid wall ! This is only one type of wrong perception. In fact everything that we see, taste, touch, hear is not exactly the same as we perceive them.

Your answer is at b) alone but to make it clear, I had to clarify other things which are related. I hope it helps.

OM

mradam83

04 June 2012, 06:08 AM

Wow!

Shuddhasattva, Devotee and Wundermonk - thank you.

Shuddhasattva, The contextualising was really helpful for me - it makes me appreciate just how vast what the west calls Hinduism ( Is that word wrong to use by the way - is it more apt to use Sanatana Dharm?) and how important the Vedas are - I shall now go and purchase a copy.

Thank you Wundermonk for trying to sum up what is surely an amazing and vast thing. Can I ask, when you first started your quest for knowledge were you confused at all but have a general idea? Or were you generally sure but needed clarification?

Thank you Devotee for the post - When I say Atheist, I mean Atheist in the sense of rejecting the Abrahamic and Judeo Christian concept of deity. I'm much more open to the Dharmic way, and I really think that I like the way Brahman and the Triumverti (I hope that's right?) Of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva sum up a very valid way of Birth, Life and Death - all valid and sound concepts as I see it.

Thank you again, I really appreciate it.

Namaste.

kallol

04 June 2012, 06:12 AM

mradam83

04 June 2012, 06:35 AM

As Devoteeji has stated, for an aethist it would be better to go in scientific logical way.

If you take all physical matters are out of energy (as of now we believe that only), then this energy (energy and physical matter form the gross matter) is also out of subtle matters. Minds, Intellect and others are part of these subtle matter.

Subtle matters cannot be proven by gross matter and 2 are different existence level.

The subtle matter is out of the ultimate or purest form i.e. consciousness. This conscousness is attributeless, changless and permanent.

Others are because of it. Again others are temporary in attributes. In permanent state the others merge into the conciousness.

The whole system is brahman. All the three states are simulteneously present. Human have physical, subtle matter and conscousness. Same is with all living and non living matter.

I think this has an awful lot of relevance to my scientific beliefs and I think the more I look into everything, this will be the route I reckon I'll proceed down. I've always held the belief that we're part of the same matter that makes up the sun, moon, plants, animals etc.

I also do believe that the human body has energy that when we die will go on and become parts of other beings and things too so I suppose this is a building block for looking into more.

yogibear

22 June 2012, 09:42 AM

Eastern Mind

22 June 2012, 02:37 PM

Vannakkam yoibear: Welcome to these forums.

Aum Namasivaya

philosoraptor

22 June 2012, 04:31 PM

mradam83

22 June 2012, 05:08 PM

By giving Brahman the name "Brahman" or "God" we contradict the idea that He has no name.

By saying that He contains everything we contradict the idea that He has no form or attributes. Can a formless entity with no attributes contain something that does have form and attributes?

Namaste,

I wonder if by this, the name Brahman is merely a name that we use just so the concept is easier to comprehend - I can't imagine something as vast as Brahman being concerned with a name?

Pranams.

philosoraptor

22 June 2012, 07:19 PM

Namaste,

I wonder if by this, the name Brahman is merely a name that we use just so the concept is easier to comprehend - I can't imagine something as vast as Brahman being concerned with a name?

Pranams.

Namaste

This would be like saying, Brahman has no names except those that we give Him. The problem is, that is how people get names - to distinguish them from other persons or things.

Furthermore, it is a principle of orthodox Vedaanta that the statements of the Veda are eternal and unauthored. If statements of Veda are eternal and unauthored, then the names given in Veda to denote Brahman are also eternal and not the result of human imagination.

So.... He has names eternally.

regards,

Shuddhasattva

23 June 2012, 01:05 AM

Namaste

From another perspective, name disappears. Namarupa (name and form) are held as provisional constructs.

There may be an absolute rupa, or an absolute nama, but this is not a body-form, nor can we say it is not a body form, nor can we say at all what it is. As with the name, if there is such.

mradam83

23 June 2012, 03:02 PM

Namaste

This would be like saying, Brahman has no names except those that we give Him. The problem is, that is how people get names - to distinguish them from other persons or things.

Furthermore, it is a principle of orthodox Vedaanta that the statements of the Veda are eternal and unauthored. If statements of Veda are eternal and unauthored, then the names given in Veda to denote Brahman are also eternal and not the result of human imagination.

So.... He has names eternally.

regards,

Namaste,

Apologies, but I think I'm misunderstanding Brahman in some ways - I always thought Brahman was everything in the cosmos and assumed Brahman was impersonal.

But Brahman has consciousness? I'm afraid I don't have access to Vedas so I can only ask at the moment the contents until I have a copy myself.

Pranams.

philosoraptor

23 June 2012, 03:55 PM

Namaste,

Apologies, but I think I'm misunderstanding Brahman in some ways - I always thought Brahman was everything in the cosmos and assumed Brahman was impersonal.

But Brahman has consciousness? I'm afraid I don't have access to Vedas so I can only ask at the moment the contents until I have a copy myself.

Pranams.

Namaste,

Yes, Brahman is a conscious being. Or so the Upanishads tell us - there are statements like "In the beginning, He willed, let there be many." There are statements also to the effect that Brahman supports everything, pervades everything, and yet is transcendental to everything - these emphasize His majesty and supremacy. Then again, there are other statements to the effect that Brahman only exists.

These two sets of seemingly contradictory statements are reconciled by vishishtaadvaita thinkers by emphasizing His role as the indwelling controller of all living entities and non-sentient matter. As He dwells in all living entities and within all matter, all this (living entities and matter) constitute His body. In that sense, He (Brahman) is all that exists. Yet, just as the soul is different from the body, controls the body, and is unblemished by the actions of the body, so also it it the case that Brahman transcends all of this.

There are many views about Brahman and its relation to other entities that fall under the umbrella of Hinduism, most of the popular ones deriving from some version of Advaita philosophy. But, the character of the Upanishads, with its treatment of Brahman, souls, and matter, seems much more vishishtaadvaitic in flavor. Of course, don't take my word for it - read for yourself. :-)

regards,

mradam83

23 June 2012, 07:58 PM

Namaste,

Yes, Brahman is a conscious being. Or so the Upanishads tell us - there are statements like "In the beginning, He willed, let there be many." There are statements also to the effect that Brahman supports everything, pervades everything, and yet is transcendental to everything - these emphasize His majesty and supremacy. Then again, there are other statements to the effect that Brahman only exists.

These two sets of seemingly contradictory statements are reconciled by vishishtaadvaita thinkers by emphasizing His role as the indwelling controller of all living entities and non-sentient matter. As He dwells in all living entities and within all matter, all this (living entities and matter) constitute His body. In that sense, He (Brahman) is all that exists. Yet, just as the soul is different from the body, controls the body, and is unblemished by the actions of the body, so also it it the case that Brahman transcends all of this.

There are many views about Brahman and its relation to other entities that fall under the umbrella of Hinduism, most of the popular ones deriving from some version of Advaita philosophy. But, the character of the Upanishads, with its treatment of Brahman, souls, and matter, seems much more vishishtaadvaitic in flavor. Of course, don't take my word for it - read for yourself. :-)

regards,

Namaste,

Wow - head spinner! I need to look into this more just to digest - it certainly is a very deep subject.

Pranams.

yajvan

23 June 2012, 08:32 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Namaste,

Yes, Brahman is a conscious being.
I look at and comprehend this slightly differently... I take no issue with what you offer, but would use your same words ( less the term 'a' ) slightly differently and say brahman is conscious being.

I would use my own words and say brahman is Being. By default Being is consciousness itself ( some like to use the word awareness); and Being by default is anuttara ( unsurpassable).
Why would I eliminate the term 'a' ? Because it would limit brahman, it would localize brahman, bring boundries to the infinite.

There are some that say brahman is catuṣpād¹ ( 4 quarters) ; some say He is represented by the symbol of 10. This 10 also is the number of syllables in the meter (chandas) of virāṭ - the one the shines (rāṭ) in every form (vi).

This chāndogyopaniṣad informs us daśa santaḥ tat kṛtam - what is created of that One becomes 10 . Hence this 10 suggests all the 10 directions¹ which infers every-thing. There is no-thing it is not. It is also nothing (ākāśa) and everything (avakāśa is to make room for all and anything).

praṇām

words/references

catuṣpād - chāndogyopaniṣad - 3.18.2
10 directions - chāndogyopaniṣad - 4.3.8

philosoraptor

24 June 2012, 03:53 PM

I look at and comprehend this slightly differently... I take no issue with what you offer, but would use your same words ( less the term 'a' ) slightly differently and say brahman is conscious being.

I would use my own words and say brahman is Being. By default Being is consciousness itself ( some like to use the word awareness); and Being by default is anuttara ( unsurpassable).
Why would I eliminate the term 'a' ? Because it would limit brahman, it would localize brahman, bring boundries to the infinite.

There are some that say brahman is catuṣpād� ( 4 quarters) ; some say He is represented by the symbol of 10. This 10 also is the number of syllables in the meter (chandas) of virāṭ - the one the shines (rāṭ) in every form (vi).

This chāndogyopaniṣad informs us daśa santaḥ tat kṛtam - what is created of that One becomes 10 . Hence this 10 suggests all the 10 directions� which infers every-thing. There is no-thing it is not. It is also nothing (ākāśa) and everything (avakāśa is to make room for all and anything).

Pranams,

After reading the above and thinking about it for a bit, I came to the conclusion that I cannot entirely agree with the above. Although we can accept that "being" and "consciousness" are interrelated (i.e. one presupposes the other), still there are problems with this answer.

The original question was, "But Brahman has consciousness?" This was asked to resolve the doubt as to whether or not Brahman is an impersonal/inert thing or an entity with the property of consciousness.

Let me show why the answer "Brahman is consciousness" or "Brahman is being" is less than helpful. Take for example, the sun. The sun has heat/warmth as one of its properties. We can thus say from a metaphorical standpoint that "sun is warmth." However, it does not follow that "warmth is sun" or that anything warm is by the very fact, the sun.

Similarly, saying "Brahman is being" would imply that simply having the property of being/consciousness makes one Brahman. While that may reflect the views of some thinkers, it is not an obviously true statement based on our experience, nor is it obviously true based on an objective reading of shAstra. I am conscious certainly, yet I am not conscious of what you are thinking or feeling. By default, I have to assume we are two different conscious beings. Since Brahman is "one without a second," I cannot assume that all beings are Brahman by virtue of being conscious.

Even if it is argued that saying "Brahman is a conscious being" because it "limits" Him, still I would disagree there. Such a conclusion is based on the false application of logic - we falsely conclude that because we have bodies and therefore limited existence, anything with a body must necessarily have limited existence. But such laws do not apply to Brahman, who can never come under limitation regardless of the form He takes. In this regard, I can point to Sri Krishna avatAra who repeatedly demonstrated His ability to be personally present in multiple places simultaneously, without losing any of His omnipotence. The first instance occurred after Brahmaa abducted His cowherd friends, then returned to see Krishna playing with those same cowherd friends, each of whom was seen by Brahmaa to be a form of Naaraayana:

SB 10.13.46 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/13/46) � Then, while Lord Brahmā looked on, all the calves and the boys tending them immediately appeared to have complexions the color of bluish rainclouds and to be dressed in yellow silken garments.
SB 10.13.47-48 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/13/47-48) � All those personalities had four arms, holding conchshell, disc, mace and lotus flower in Their hands. They wore helmets on Their heads, earrings on Their ears and garlands of forest flowers around Their necks. On the upper portion of the right side of Their chests was the emblem of the goddess of fortune. Furthermore, They wore armlets on Their arms, the Kaustubha gem around Their necks, which were marked with three lines like a conchshell, and bracelets on Their wrists. With bangles on Their ankles, ornaments on Their feet, and sacred belts around Their waists, They all appeared very beautiful.
SB 10.13.49 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/13/49) � Every part of Their bodies, from Their feet to the top of Their heads, was fully decorated with fresh, tender garlands of tulasī leaves offered by devotees engaged in worshiping the Lord by the greatest pious activities, namely hearing and chanting.
SB 10.13.50 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/13/50) � Those Viṣṇu forms, by Their pure smiling, which resembled the increasing light of the moon, and by the sidelong glances of Their reddish eyes, created and protected the desires of Their own devotees, as if by the modes of passion and goodness.
SB 10.13.51 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/13/51) � All beings, both moving and nonmoving, from the four-headed Lord Brahmā down to the most insignificant living entity, had taken forms and were differently worshiping those viṣṇu-mūrtis, according to their respective capacities, with various means of worship, such as dancing and singing.
SB 10.13.52 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/13/52) � All the viṣṇu-mūrtis were surrounded by the opulences, headed by aṇimā-siddhi; by the mystic potencies, headed by Ajā; and by the twenty-four elements for the creation of the material world, headed by the mahat-tattva.
SB 10.13.53 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/13/53) � Then Lord Brahmā saw that kāla (the time factor), svabhāva (one�s own nature by association), saṁskāra (reformation), kāma (desire), karma (fruitive activity) and the guṇas (the three modes of material nature), their own independence being completely subordinate to the potency of the Lord, had all taken forms and were also worshiping those viṣṇu-mūrtis.
SB 10.13.54 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/13/54) � The viṣṇu-mūrtis all had eternal, unlimited forms, full of knowledge and bliss and existing beyond the influence of time. Their great glory was not even to be touched by the j�ānīs engaged in studying the Upaniṣads.

A second episode occurred after Akruura came on behalf of Kamsa to take Krishna and Balaraama to Mathura. On the way, Akruura sees Naaraayana and Ananta-Shesha submerged in the water even though Krishna and Balaraama were standing on the riverbank behind him.

SB 10.39.41 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/39/41) � While immersing himself in the water and reciting eternal mantras from the Vedas, Akrūra suddenly saw Balarāma and Kṛṣṇa before him.
SB 10.39.42-43 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/39/42-43) � Akrūra thought, �How can the two sons of Ānakadundubhi, who are sitting in the chariot, be standing here in the water? They must have left the chariot.� But when he came out of the river, there They were on the chariot, just as before. Asking himself �Was the vision I had of Them in the water an illusion?� Akrūra reentered the pool.
SB 10.39.44-45 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/39/44-45) � There Akrūra now saw Ananta Śeṣa, the Lord of the serpents, receiving praise from Siddhas, Cāraṇas, Gandharvas and demons, who all had their heads bowed. The Personality of Godhead whom Akrūra saw had thousands of heads, thousands of hoods and thousands of helmets. His blue garment and His fair complexion, as white as the filaments of a lotus stem, made Him appear like white Kailāsa Mountain with its many peaks.
SB 10.39.46-48 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/39/46-48) � Akrūra then saw the Supreme Personality of Godhead lying peacefully on the lap of Lord Ananta Śeṣa. The complexion of that Supreme Person was like a dark-blue cloud. He wore yellow garments and had four arms and reddish lotus-petal eyes. His face looked attractive and cheerful with its smiling, endearing glance and lovely eyebrows, its raised nose and finely formed ears, and its beautiful cheeks and reddish lips. The Lord�s broad shoulders and expansive chest were beautiful, and His arms long and stout. His neck resembled a conchshell, His navel was deep, and His abdomen bore lines like those on a banyan leaf.

A third episode occurred when Devarshi Naarada visited Sri Krishna in Dwaaraka. There, being already married to 16,108 queens, Sri Krishna was seen to be personally present with each of them simultaneously:

SB 10.69.19 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/69/19) � Nārada then entered the palace of another of Lord Kṛṣṇa�s wives, my dear King. He was eager to witness the spiritual potency possessed by the master of all masters of mystic power.
SB 10.69.20-22 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/69/20-22) � There he saw the Lord playing at dice with His beloved consort and His friend Uddhava. Lord Kṛṣṇa worshiped Nārada by standing up, offering him a seat, and so on, and then, as if He did not know, asked him, �When did you arrive? What can needy persons like Us do for those who are full in themselves? In any case, My dear brāhmaṇa, please make My life auspicious.� Thus addressed, Nārada was astonished. He simply stood up silently and went to another palace.
SB 10.69.23 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/69/23) � This time Nāradajī saw that Lord Kṛṣṇa was engaged as an affectionate father petting His small children. From there he entered another palace and saw Lord Kṛṣṇa preparing to take His bath.
SB 10.69.24 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/69/24) � In one place the Lord was offering oblations into the sacrificial fires; in another, worshiping through the five mahā-yaj�as; in another, feeding brāhmaṇas; and in yet another, eating the remnants of food left by brāhmaṇas.
SB 10.69.25 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/69/25) � Somewhere Lord Kṛṣṇa was observing the rituals for worship at sunset by refraining from speech and quietly chanting the Gāyatrī mantra, and elsewhere He was moving about with sword and shield in the areas set aside for sword practice.
SB 10.69.26 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/69/26) � In one place Lord Gadāgraja was riding on horses, elephants and chariots, and in another place He was resting on His bed while bards recited His glories.
SB 10.69.27 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/69/27) � Somewhere He was consulting with royal ministers like Uddhava, and somewhere else He was enjoying in the water, surrounded by many society girls and other young women.
SB 10.69.28 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/69/28) � Somewhere He was giving well-decorated cows to exalted brāhmaṇas, and elsewhere he was listening to the auspicious narration of epic histories and Purāṇas.
SB 10.69.29 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/69/29) � Somewhere Lord Kṛṣṇa was found enjoying the company of a particular wife by exchanging joking words with her. Somewhere else He was found engaged, along with His wife, in religious ritualistic functions. Somewhere Kṛṣṇa was found engaged in matters of economic development, and somewhere else He was found enjoying family life according to the regulative principles of the śāstras.

A fourth episode occurred when Sri Krishna drove the chariot carrying Arjuna straight to the domain of Naaraayana Himself to retrieve the prematurely deceased sons of the Dwaaraka brahmin. There, Sri Krishna played the part of a mere charioteer, who along with Arjuna were conversing with Himself in the form Mahaa-Vishnu!

SB 10.89.57 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/89/57) � Lord Kṛṣṇa offered homage to Himself in this boundless form, and Arjuna, astonished at the sight of Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu, bowed down as well. Then, as the two of them stood before Him with joined palms, the almighty Mahā-Viṣṇu, supreme master of all rulers of the universe, smiled and spoke to them in a voice full of solemn authority.
SB 10.89.58 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/89/58) � [Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu said:] I brought the brāhmaṇa�s sons here because I wanted to see the two of you, My expansions, who have descended to the earth to save the principles of religion. As soon as you finish killing the demons who burden the earth, quickly come back here to Me.

The conclusion is that nothing limits the Parama Purusha, Param Brahman Naaraayana. He can be personally present everywhere if He so chooses, and He does not lose anything by doing so. We cannot conceive of how He can do this, but the fact remains that He can. It is very difficult to conceive of what an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient entity can do since we our own experiences are conditioned by our miniscule potency, limited presence, and limited knowledge. Fortunately, we have these chronicles of His descents to instruct us!

regards,

mradam83

24 June 2012, 06:34 PM

Pranams,

After reading the above and thinking about it for a bit, I came to the conclusion that I cannot entirely agree with the above. Although we can accept that "being" and "consciousness" are interrelated (i.e. one presupposes the other), still there are problems with this answer.

The original question was, "But Brahman has consciousness?" This was asked to resolve the doubt as to whether or not Brahman is an impersonal/inert thing or an entity with the property of consciousness.

Let me show why the answer "Brahman is consciousness" or "Brahman is being" is less than helpful. Take for example, the sun. The sun has heat/warmth as one of its properties. We can thus say from a metaphorical standpoint that "sun is warmth." However, it does not follow that "warmth is sun" or that anything warm is by the very fact, the sun.

Similarly, saying "Brahman is being" would imply that simply having the property of being/consciousness makes one Brahman. While that may reflect the views of some thinkers, it is not an obviously true statement based on our experience, nor is it obviously true based on an objective reading of shAstra. I am conscious certainly, yet I am not conscious of what you are thinking or feeling. By default, I have to assume we are two different conscious beings. Since Brahman is "one without a second," I cannot assume that all beings are Brahman by virtue of being conscious.

Even if it is argued that saying "Brahman is a conscious being" because it "limits" Him, still I would disagree there. Such a conclusion is based on the false application of logic - we falsely conclude that because we have bodies and therefore limited existence, anything with a body must necessarily have limited existence. But such laws do not apply to Brahman, who can never come under limitation regardless of the form He takes. In this regard, I can point to Sri Krishna avatAra who repeatedly demonstrated His ability to be personally present in multiple places simultaneously, without losing any of His omnipotence. The first instance occurred after Brahmaa abducted His cowherd friends, then returned to see Krishna playing with those same cowherd friends, each of whom was seen by Brahmaa to be a form of Naaraayana:

A second episode occurred after Akruura came on behalf of Kamsa to take Krishna and Balaraama to Mathura. On the way, Akruura sees Naaraayana and Ananta-Shesha submerged in the water even though Krishna and Balaraama were standing on the riverbank behind him.

A third episode occurred when Devarshi Naarada visited Sri Krishna in Dwaaraka. There, being already married to 16,108 queens, Sri Krishna was seen to be personally present with each of them simultaneously:

A fourth episode occurred when Sri Krishna drove the chariot carrying Arjuna straight to the domain of Naaraayana Himself to retrieve the prematurely deceased sons of the Dwaaraka brahmin. There, Sri Krishna played the part of a mere charioteer, who along with Arjuna were conversing with Himself in the form Mahaa-Vishnu!

The conclusion is that nothing limits the Parama Purusha, Param Brahman Naaraayana. He can be personally present everywhere if He so chooses, and He does not lose anything by doing so. We cannot conceive of how He can do this, but the fact remains that He can. It is very difficult to conceive of what an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient entity can do since we our own experiences are conditioned by our miniscule potency, limited presence, and limited knowledge. Fortunately, we have these chronicles of His descents to instruct us!

regards,

Namaste,

Could it be also that Brahman has consciousness but also is being, matter and everything else? It strikes me that Brahman is very advanced, far greater a concept that what is understood anywhere in the west.

I don't personally take it that you, me or anyone else is Brahman specifically but rather we are parts of a greater whole as in the planet, galaxy, universe etc - like a strand of fabric on a garment, which on its own exists but in reality is a part of a much bigger structure.

I won't say too much more as I am a novice still, but I think sometimes spelling things out goes some way to understanding.

Pranams.

yajvan

24 June 2012, 10:30 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Could it be also that Brahman has consciousness but also is being, matter and everything else? It strikes me that Brahman is very advanced, far greater a concept that what is understood anywhere in the west.

What you may wish to consider is the following, which is a bit advanced in thinking, but just may help. It is the notion of sarvaṃ sarvātmakaṃ.

sarva सर्व - everything, all; whole, completely
ātmakaṃ or ātmaka आत्मक- belonging to or forming the nature of Hence sarva + sarva + ātmaka = everything + everything all + belonging to or forming the nature of; Or in prose , everything pervades everything else.

This brahman is so essentially fundamental to everything it is sāra. This word sāra means the essence or ~heart~ or essential part of anything. This is the notion of the term Being. It is even more subtle then space, pure, empty space (ākāśa). So by default it is the fundamental foundation of all and every and any thing. Of any thought, idea, object, non-object, creation, absence of creation, it is that fundamental to manifestion itself.

That is why it is said it pervades everything. It is non-seperate from every and any thing. Because it is so integraded, full, whole, without seems or parts, we miss it.
So is it consciousness ? It is considered a mass of consciousness and fundamentally the foundation of consciousness , Being.

I rest this idea for a time as we have gone quite far past entry level ideas.

praṇām

devotee

24 June 2012, 11:11 PM

Could it be also that Brahman has consciousness but also is being, matter and everything else?

Namaste Adam,

It is incorrect to say, "Consciousness has Brahman" as its Sanskrit version is : "PrjNANam Brahman". As per the grammar of Sanskrit, it cannot mean, "Brahman has consciousness". If that were so, then saptam vibhakti must have been used with Brahman i.e. it should have been written as "Brahmne" (in Brahman) in this sentence but in fact, there is first vibhakti alone which makes it KartA (the subject ... Noun).

Therefore, it certainly means, "Consciousness is Brahman". If you study the Upanishads deep then you will find that "Everything is Brahman alone" (Sarvakhalva idam Brahman). Therefore, beings, matter and everything that we can think of or cannot think of is actually Brahman alone.

OM

kallol

25 June 2012, 06:45 AM

Dear mradam,

Do not get overwhelmed by philosoraptor. The knowledge he might be deriving out of the scriptures is inducing many thought process, which might lead to haziness, lack of clarity or confusion of the already complex theory.

Limit your self to Bramhan in which all are within. This is because Brahman is the infinite and nothing is beyond.

The consciousness is the purest form from which others come into being.

There is no begining and no end as it is a cycle of manifestation and unmanifestation.

Being aethist, limit yourself to advaita - your alignment will be better.

My understanding of this theory - it is the science of today + science of future.

As because the greatness of the vast science was overwhelming even for the best minds, leave apart the normal people, thus it was packaged in terms of Gods, rituals, temples, etc. This was only to prepare the extremely extrovert minds to look inward and make ready for the knowledge inflow. Only the analytical minds (inward looking minds) can decipher the true knowledge of the scriptures.

Thus the tradition and the religion.

Namaste,

Could it be also that Brahman has consciousness but also is being, matter and everything else? It strikes me that Brahman is very advanced, far greater a concept that what is understood anywhere in the west.

I don't personally take it that you, me or anyone else is Brahman specifically but rather we are parts of a greater whole as in the planet, galaxy, universe etc - like a strand of fabric on a garment, which on its own exists but in reality is a part of a much bigger structure.

I won't say too much more as I am a novice still, but I think sometimes spelling things out goes some way to understanding.

Pranams.

philosoraptor

25 June 2012, 11:36 AM

Namaste,

Could it be also that Brahman has consciousness but also is being, matter and everything else? It strikes me that Brahman is very advanced, far greater a concept that what is understood anywhere in the west.

I don't personally take it that you, me or anyone else is Brahman specifically but rather we are parts of a greater whole as in the planet, galaxy, universe etc - like a strand of fabric on a garment, which on its own exists but in reality is a part of a much bigger structure.

Namaste,

Indeed, I think you are closer to the mark than you realize. We are all part and parcel of Brahman. We are individual, eternally existing beings, and so is Brahman. We, the jIvAtmas are related to Brahman as body is related to soul. Note that this viewpoint will not be acceptable to strict Advaitins or Dvaitins (aka Tattvavaadins). If Advaita and Dvaita occupy opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum, then I am discussing a paradigm that is somewhere in the middle and which seems more in the flavor of what the shrutis actually say.

Let us deliberate on this point (body and soul) for a moment. The soul, or jIvAtman (sometimes called just jIva or Atma*), is the seat of consciousness in the body. When the body engages in the activities of living, we can understand that the soul is present. When there is no sign of life from the body, we can understand that the soul has departed. Thus, we Hindus do not speak of "losing our soul." Rather, we say that we are souls, and we happen to have bodies.

The body is energized by, and serves the soul. When we interact with others, we tend to refer to them by their bodily identity. We may address your body as "Adam," but it is implict that we are actually referring to you, the jIvAtma, by the name of the body in which it is dwelling. This is known in grammar as the principle of coordinate predication, the principle by which a group of things are together referred to by the name of one the things within the group. We do this all the time when we address each other by our bodily names. It is not because we are our bodies - it is because this is a grammatical convenience. Similarly, we say that the box and the wrapping enclosing a toy is a "birthday present," although really the toy within is indicated by the term "present." This does not mean that the box is the toy, - both are real-but-distinct entities clustered together and indicated by one term.

Now, the Vedic understanding of Brahman is that He is the Paramaatma who dwells within each of us Jiivas and within every element of matter. This follows from very straightforward reading of shruti:

bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad:

II-v-13: This human species is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this human species. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this human species, and the shining, immortal being identified with the human species in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.

II-v-14: This (cosmic) body is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this (cosmic) body. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this (cosmic) body, and the shining, immortal being who is this (individual) self. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.

II-v-15: This Self, already mentioned, is the ruler of all beings, and the king of all beings. Just as all the spokes are fixed in the nave and the felloe of a chariot-wheel, so are all beings, all gods, all worlds, all organs and all these (individual) selves fixed in this Self.

III-vii-15: He who inhabits all beings, but is within it, whom no being knows, whose body is all beings, and who controls all beings from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the beings.

So, if He dwells within us, then it follows that He can also be referred to by the names of the bodies in which He dwells and functions He performs in those bodies. This is just according to the principle of coordinate predication discussed earlier. In fact, this point is also alluded to in bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad:

I-iv-7: This (universe) was then undifferentiated. It differentiated only into name and form - it was called such and such, and was of such and such form. So to this day it is differentiated only into name and form - it is called such and such, and is of such and such form. This Self has entered into these bodies up to the tip of the nails - as a razor may be put in its case, or as fire, which sustains the world, may be in its source. People do not see It, for (viewed in Its aspects) It is incomplete. When It does the function of living. It is called the vital force; when It speaks, the organ of speech; when It sees, the eye; when It hears, the ear; and when It thinks, the mind. These are merely Its names according to functions. He who meditates upon each of this totality of aspects does not know, for It is incomplete, (being divided) from this totality by possessing a single characteristic. The Self alone is to be meditated upon, for all these are unified in It. Of all these, this Self should be realised, for one knows all these through It, just as one may get (an animal) through its foot-prints. He who knows It as such obtains fame and association (with his relatives).

Here, you can undertand that "Self" is referring to paramAtma aka Brahman. Note that, just as we can call Him prAna (vital air), vAk (speech), and so on when He performs these functions, similarly we can call Him indra, agni, vAyu, rudra, etc as He dwells within the bodies of the devas who have the same names and is their inner controller.

Note that, by this understanding, we can easily understand how the Vedas are consistent in spite of seemingly contradictory statements. On one hand, their are statements to the effect that Brahman transcends everything, creates everything, and supports everything. These emphasize Brahman's majesty and transcendence from everything else, and thus they acknowledge the reality of entities other than Brahman which are dependent on Brahman.

On the other hand, we also have statements like "all this is Brahman" or "Brahman only exists" or "I am Brahman." These statements should be understood as including all conscious and non-conscious entities (chetanas and achetanas) within the scope of the term "Brahman" as they constitute the body of Brahman.

So, with this in mind, what does "self-realization" mean? It means, first and foremost, that one understands that one is the soul, and thus one is distinct from matter. But it also means that one must understand that one's self is the body of the Supreme Self that dwells within. If the body serves the soul, and we are the body of the Supreme Soul, then it follows that we have no independent existence - we are real, and we belong to Brahman. Knowing that we belong to Brahman, our every thought and action should be devoted to serving Him only.

regards,

philosoraptor

* Note that "Atma" can also mean "paramAtma" (aka Brahman aka God) in some contexts, as it can also sometimes mean "mind" and "body."

mradam83

25 June 2012, 04:35 PM

Namaste,

Indeed, I think you are closer to the mark than you realize. We are all part and parcel of Brahman. We are individual, eternally existing beings, and so is Brahman. We, the jIvAtmas are related to Brahman as body is related to soul. Note that this viewpoint will not be acceptable to strict Advaitins or Dvaitins (aka Tattvavaadins). If Advaita and Dvaita occupy opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum, then I am discussing a paradigm that is somewhere in the middle and which seems more in the flavor of what the shrutis actually say.

Let us deliberate on this point (body and soul) for a moment. The soul, or jIvAtman (sometimes called just jIva or Atma*), is the seat of consciousness in the body. When the body engages in the activities of living, we can understand that the soul is present. When there is no sign of life from the body, we can understand that the soul has departed. Thus, we Hindus do not speak of "losing our soul." Rather, we say that we are souls, and we happen to have bodies.

The body is energized by, and serves the soul. When we interact with others, we tend to refer to them by their bodily identity. We may address your body as "Adam," but it is implict that we are actually referring to you, the jIvAtma, by the name of the body in which it is dwelling. This is known in grammar as the principle of coordinate predication, the principle by which a group of things are together referred to by the name of one the things within the group. We do this all the time when we address each other by our bodily names. It is not because we are our bodies - it is because this is a grammatical convenience. Similarly, we say that the box and the wrapping enclosing a toy is a "birthday present," although really the toy within is indicated by the term "present." This does not mean that the box is the toy, - both are real-but-distinct entities clustered together and indicated by one term.

Now, the Vedic understanding of Brahman is that He is the Paramaatma who dwells within each of us Jiivas and within every element of matter. This follows from very straightforward reading of shruti:

bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad:

So, if He dwells within us, then it follows that He can also be referred to by the names of the bodies in which He dwells and functions He performs in those bodies. This is just according to the principle of coordinate predication discussed earlier. In fact, this point is also alluded to in bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad:

Here, you can undertand that "Self" is referring to paramAtma aka Brahman. Note that, just as we can call Him prAna (vital air), vAk (speech), and so on when He performs these functions, similarly we can call Him indra, agni, vAyu, rudra, etc as He dwells within the bodies of the devas who have the same names and is their inner controller.

Note that, by this understanding, we can easily understand how the Vedas are consistent in spite of seemingly contradictory statements. On one hand, their are statements to the effect that Brahman transcends everything, creates everything, and supports everything. These emphasize Brahman's majesty and transcendence from everything else, and thus they acknowledge the reality of entities other than Brahman which are dependent on Brahman.

On the other hand, we also have statements like "all this is Brahman" or "Brahman only exists" or "I am Brahman." These statements should be understood as including all conscious and non-conscious entities (chetanas and achetanas) within the scope of the term "Brahman" as they constitute the body of Brahman.

So, with this in mind, what does "self-realization" mean? It means, first and foremost, that one understands that one is the soul, and thus one is distinct from matter. But it also means that one must understand that one's self is the body of the Supreme Self that dwells within. If the body serves the soul, and we are the body of the Supreme Soul, then it follows that we have no independent existence - we are real, and we belong to Brahman. Knowing that we belong to Brahman, our every thought and action should be devoted to serving Him only.

regards,

philosoraptor

* Note that "Atma" can also mean "paramAtma" (aka Brahman aka God) in some contexts, as it can also sometimes mean "mind" and "body."

Namaste,

Wow, that is interesting.

When you think of the description or notion of body parts/organs having a form of spirit then it just shows how the energies of Brahman pervades all.

When you say that Brahman deserves worship Only, do you consider the other gods as an extension/part of Brahman?

Pranams.

philosoraptor

25 June 2012, 07:38 PM

Namaste,

Wow, that is interesting.

When you think of the description or notion of body parts/organs having a form of spirit then it just shows how the energies of Brahman pervades all.

When you say that Brahman deserves worship Only, do you consider the other gods as an extension/part of Brahman?

Pranams.

Yes - other devas should be seen as empowered servants of Brahman. In the shruti, we are advised to worship Brahman in different manifestations, the most notable being the sun. The twice-born perform sandhya vandanam which is often considered worship of the sun. However, in reality, it is worship of Brahman as the inner controller of the presiding deity of the sun. Why then, do brahmins worship Him in this form? Most likely, it has to do with the principle of understanding the inconceivable through one of His localized manifestations which we can understand. Just as the sun is warm, dispels darkness, is powerful, we can begin to understand that Brahman is like this, but so much, much more.

In the same way, Vaishnavas who do sandhya vandanam invoke goddess Sarasvati also. It is not because they consider Sarasvati on par with Vishnu - it is because they are worshipping Him through Sarasvati who gives power to the faculty of speech, understanding etc. Similarly, Brahman Himself has that power in greater measure, just as He has luminosity in much greater measure than the sun. But the devas, who are less powerful and more accessible to the people, can be appreciated more easily than Brahman directly.

It's important to understand that in the Vedic age, human interactions with devas appear to have been relatively common compared to now. So, like the sun as a focus of meditation, understanding the power and magnificence of the devas helps one to begin to understand Brahman, who is so much more.

There is a stereotype held by Neo-Hindus that considering one deity superior to the others is belittling to them. This stereotype has no basis in any classical system of Vaishnava vedaanta. For traditional Vaishnavas, devas are correctly understood to be servants and aides of Lord Vishnu, and such positions are deemed as highly respectable by the knowledgeable bhaktas.

regards,

mradam83

26 June 2012, 07:03 PM

Yes - other devas should be seen as empowered servants of Brahman. In the shruti, we are advised to worship Brahman in different manifestations, the most notable being the sun. The twice-born perform sandhya vandanam which is often considered worship of the sun. However, in reality, it is worship of Brahman as the inner controller of the presiding deity of the sun. Why then, do brahmins worship Him in this form? Most likely, it has to do with the principle of understanding the inconceivable through one of His localized manifestations which we can understand. Just as the sun is warm, dispels darkness, is powerful, we can begin to understand that Brahman is like this, but so much, much more.

In the same way, Vaishnavas who do sandhya vandanam invoke goddess Sarasvati also. It is not because they consider Sarasvati on par with Vishnu - it is because they are worshipping Him through Sarasvati who gives power to the faculty of speech, understanding etc. Similarly, Brahman Himself has that power in greater measure, just as He has luminosity in much greater measure than the sun. But the devas, who are less powerful and more accessible to the people, can be appreciated more easily than Brahman directly.

It's important to understand that in the Vedic age, human interactions with devas appear to have been relatively common compared to now. So, like the sun as a focus of meditation, understanding the power and magnificence of the devas helps one to begin to understand Brahman, who is so much more.

There is a stereotype held by Neo-Hindus that considering one deity superior to the others is belittling to them. This stereotype has no basis in any classical system of Vaishnava vedaanta. For traditional Vaishnavas, devas are correctly understood to be servants and aides of Lord Vishnu, and such positions are deemed as highly respectable by the knowledgeable bhaktas.

regards,

Namaste,

Cheers for that reply.

I struggle to see a pantheon of separate gods, but rather like an orange - all are segments surrounded by a protective peel. I'm not sure whether the skin is Vishnu or Brahman, or whether Brahman is the tree that the orange is on.

As I've said previously though I don't have access to earlier texts like the Vedas, I am mainly studying the Gita at present.

Pranams.

yajvan

26 June 2012, 08:08 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

As I've said previously though I don't have access to earlier texts like the Vedas, ....
Working, reading and studying the bhāgavad gītā is very good and grooms one's intellect. It is called the cream of the veda-s.

Regarding the veda-s
Many times people read the ved and look to its literal meaning. This ( many times to most often) causes confusion between the word, intent, and the subtle meaning of what is being offered.

The ved works within parokṣa, saṃketa and śailī to give us a deeper sense of the truth. What are these words ?

parokṣa- beyond the range of sight ; in an invisible or imperceptible manner; secretly , mysteriously
We can consider this word to mean subtle, beyond the initial meaning.
The other approach is saṃketa - a hint , sign or signal or gesture . It is rooted (√ ) in kṛ ' to give a signal '.
śailī (2nd derivation) is a special or particular interpretation Why does this occur ? Some think it is to keep hidden some of the deeper truths and only meter them out to the worthy. Those that pursue the knowledge to go deeper and wider into the knowlege. Others think it is written for those that are realized beings, who will know what the śloka-s mean and will preserve the accuracy and meaning of the wisdom. Then there are others that use the aitareya upaniṣad - 1st adhyāya, 3rd kanda (or chapter 1 part 3)
as a guide.

This upaniṣad informs us parokṣa priya iva hi devaḥ - that is, the devatā are fond or like (priya) to be addressed in a certain manner
(iva) , parokṣa or secretly, indirect, accordingly (hi). What would be an example of this ? The very same upaniṣad informs us that indra's name is idandraṁ¹. Because the devatā's like the indirect method he is known as indra.

One does not need to look far into the ṛg (rig) ved to find additional examples .

praṇām

words

idandraṁ is a very unique word form. Some tell us it comes from idam adarśam iti.
idam = this or that; it also means known
adarśam = can be viewed as ā-darśa and means a mirror.
iti = thus
Hence this says to me idandraṁ is a reflection (adarśam) of that (idam). Others say idandraṁ means 'It seeing' (It darśa). In both cases what is being seen or reflected ? That or brahman.

mradam83

27 June 2012, 09:31 AM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

Working, reading and studying the bhāgavad gītā is very good and grooms one's intellect. It is called the cream of the veda-s.

Regarding the veda-s
Many times people read the ved and look to its literal meaning. This ( many times to most often) causes confusion between the word, intent, and the subtle meaning of what is being offered.

The ved works within parokṣa, saṃketa and śailī to give us a deeper sense of the truth. What are these words ?

parokṣa- beyond the range of sight ; in an invisible or imperceptible manner; secretly , mysteriously
We can consider this word to mean subtle, beyond the initial meaning.
The other approach is saṃketa - a hint , sign or signal or gesture . It is rooted (√ ) in kṛ ' to give a signal '.
śailī (2nd derivation) is a special or particular interpretation Why does this occur ? Some think it is to keep hidden some of the deeper truths and only meter them out to the worthy. Those that pursue the knowledge to go deeper and wider into the knowlege. Others think it is written for those that are realized beings, who will know what the śloka-s mean and will preserve the accuracy and meaning of the wisdom. Then there are others that use the aitareya upaniṣad - 1st adhyāya, 3rd kanda (or chapter 1 part 3)
as a guide.

This upaniṣad informs us parokṣa priya iva hi devaḥ - that is, the devatā are fond or like (priya) to be addressed in a certain manner
(iva) , parokṣa or secretly, indirect, accordingly (hi). What would be an example of this ? The very same upaniṣad informs us that indra's name is idandraṁ�. Because the devatā's like the indirect method he is known as indra.

One does not need to look far into the ṛg (rig) ved to find additional examples .

praṇām

words

idandraṁ is a very unique word form. Some tell us it comes from idam adarśam iti.
idam = this or that; it also means known
adarśam = can be viewed as ā-darśa and means a mirror.
iti = thus
Hence this says to me idandraṁ is a reflection (adarśam) of that (idam). Others say idandraṁ means 'It seeing' (It darśa). In both cases what is being seen or reflected ? That or brahman.

Namaste,

Looking at your explanation and write-up on the Vedas, it makes me wonder if when the Vedas are described as having no author if it means that the subject has no author but rather it was wrote down by someone who knows the universal truths? It strikes me as that only those with the right sort of mind can truly grasp the truths contained.

Pranams.

philosoraptor

27 June 2012, 11:51 AM

Namaste,

Cheers for that reply.

I struggle to see a pantheon of separate gods, but rather like an orange - all are segments surrounded by a protective peel. I'm not sure whether the skin is Vishnu or Brahman, or whether Brahman is the tree that the orange is on.

As I've said previously though I don't have access to earlier texts like the Vedas, I am mainly studying the Gita at present.

Pranams.

Pranams.

If it helps, the "gods" can be seen not as "gods" but as long-living mortals filled by pious jivas. Note that many Neo-Hindus will not like this position, but it is the position that is upheld by shAstra. We don't say that Christianity is polytheistic because it has angels, for example. However, unlike Christianity, worship of Brahman as the indwelling controller of the devas is allowed, as is worship of Brahman in conjunction with the devas as His associates.

Brahman is Vishnu. Brahman is Indra. Brahman is Shiva. Brahman is Rudra, etc. These are true statements because, being the creator of all other devas who have names according to their functions/qualities, He must also have those qualities in fuller measure and also can be indicated by the same names. Furthermore, He is the indwelling controller of other devas who have these names.

The name Naaraayana, however, refers only to Brahman according to rules of Sanskrit grammar. The blue-skinned deity with four arms carrying conch and chakra, known as Vishnu, and associated with Lakshmi should not be understood as merely one of the devas but as Brahman aka Naaraayana Himself. This point is clearly stated in shAstra. However, there are some references to another deity by the name Vishnu that may be a different entity.

Bhagavad-gita is sufficient to understand the essence of the Vedas.

regards,

yajvan

27 June 2012, 01:05 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

Namaste,
Looking at your explanation and write-up on the Vedas, it makes me wonder if when the Vedas are described as having no author if it means that the subject has no author but rather it was wrote down by someone who knows the universal truths? It strikes me as that only those with the right sort of mind can truly grasp the truths contained.
Pranams.
Let's see if I can add some ideas to what you have said. The veda-s are not of human origion... the word for this is apauruṣeya and defined as 'not coming from men'.
Let's give an example that may be easier to appreciate. Think of gravity. It has been here before humans and will be here after humans. It is apauruṣeya , yet Newton and others were able to understand it and write equations to define this phenomenon. All the laws of nature have been here before humans , the human was not the author of the laws, but have been able to observe and record the laws.

Like that, various ṛṣi-s were able to cognize the truth's of the Universe. Their instrument is consciousness, some call this ṛtambharā praj�ā �, a level of consciousness that only knows the truth.

So, your words ring true.

praṇām

words

ṛtambharā praj�ā - we find this in the 48th sūtra of pata�jali�s yogadarśana:It is talked about as ṛtambharā praj�ā - luminous wisdom that is carried out , brought out, some may say sung out.
It is knowledge with no hint of viparyaya ( the filters). The 48th sūtra reads this way: ṛtambharā tatra praj�ā ||Supreme Truth (ṛtambharā) inner wisdom (praj�ā) rises, and prevails in that place (tatra) That is, a level of consciousness that only sees the truth. The wise also call this full of unalloyed Truth. One's awareness holds truth, sees truth, with no trace of misconception.
This ṛtambharā happens when one gains proficiency; This proficiency can be called pure consciousness, yet the technical term used by pata�jali-muni is nirvichāra.

mradam83

27 June 2012, 06:26 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

Let's see if I can add some ideas to what you have said. The veda-s are not of human origion... the word for this is apauruṣeya and defined as 'not coming from men'.
Let's give an example that may be easier to appreciate. Think of gravity. It has been here before humans and will be here after humans. It is apauruṣeya , yet Newton and others were able to understand it and write equations to define this phenomenon. All the laws of nature have been here before humans , the human was not the author of the laws, but have been able to observe and record the laws.

Like that, various ṛṣi-s were able to cognize the truth's of the Universe. Their instrument is consciousness, some call this ṛtambharā praj�ā �, a level of consciousness that only knows the truth.

So, your words ring true.

praṇām

words

ṛtambharā praj�ā - we find this in the 48th sūtra of pata�jali�s yogadarśana:It is talked about as ṛtambharā praj�ā - luminous wisdom that is carried out , brought out, some may say sung out.
It is knowledge with no hint of viparyaya ( the filters). The 48th sūtra reads this way: ṛtambharā tatra praj�ā ||Supreme Truth (ṛtambharā) inner wisdom (praj�ā) rises, and prevails in that place (tatra) That is, a level of consciousness that only sees the truth. The wise also call this full of unalloyed Truth. One's awareness holds truth, sees truth, with no trace of misconception.
This ṛtambharā happens when one gains proficiency; This proficiency can be called pure consciousness, yet the technical term used by pata�jali-muni is nirvichāra.

Namaste,

Yes, that is a perfect analogy - like when Newton understood the concept of gravity before any other human did.

I think it would be different for a human to experience pure consciousness these days, particularly in the west, as we appear to be having an increasingly busier and mentally challenging life.

Pranams.

yajvan

27 June 2012, 09:03 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Namaste,
I think it would be different for a human to experience pure consciousness these days, particularly in the west, as we appear to be having an increasingly busier and mentally challenging life.

Busier perhaps, but there are thousands that experience it every day. One needn't go anther further then their own Selves for this experience. The ~technique~ is to have this occur in an orderly manner, not haphazardly. When it occurs haphazardly then the person does not know what occured - as if if something came out of the blue. Hence the value of an approach and a teacher.

praṇām

mradam83

29 June 2012, 04:18 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

Busier perhaps, but there are thousands that experience it every day. One needn't go anther further then their own Selves for this experience. The ~technique~ is to have this occur in an orderly manner, not haphazardly. When it occurs haphazardly then the person does not know what occured - as if if something came out of the blue. Hence the value of an approach and a teacher.

praṇām

Namaste,

Yes, a teacher I suppose is invaluable - especially if it's someone who is very spiritual.

Pranams.

yogibear

05 July 2012, 12:37 AM

philosoraptor

05 July 2012, 09:11 AM

Brahman is the only God and has no name or form. Everything is contained in Brahman. Brahman manages all that is created through many subtle divine forces. Highly evolved Yogis have glimpsed these subtle forces at work and have given personal forms to them so that ordinary people may worship them. Since it is not possible to imagine Brahman, these personal forms will make it simpler for ordinary people to concentrate on. By prolonged concentration (meditation) on the personal forms the devotee will slip into the pleasant, stillness, peaceful void of Brahman.

Brahman has no name, except of course for names like "Brahman" and "God."

Brahman has no form, yet it contains everything.

Highly evolved Yogis have "given" us personal forms to worship Brahman. So, according to this, Hindus worship fictional images.

And the best part of this is that, by worshipping an unreal image, one will supposedly realize the formless Brahman, (which we only call Brahman for convenience, it really having no name).

Let me just say this: The above beliefs, though inconsistent and rather unflattering towards Hindus, are quite popular in modern Hindu circles. But they don't represent what we find in the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-gita. Not even close.

Sahasranama

05 July 2012, 09:33 AM

kallol

05 July 2012, 09:41 AM

Brahman has no name, except of course for names like "Brahman" and "God."

Brahman has no form, yet it contains everything.

Highly evolved Yogis have "given" us personal forms to worship Brahman. So, according to this, Hindus worship fictional images.

And the best part of this is that, by worshipping an unreal image, one will supposedly realize the formless Brahman, (which we only call Brahman for convenience, it really having no name).

Let me just say this: The above beliefs, though inconsistent and rather unflattering towards Hindus, are quite popular in modern Hindu circles. But they don't represent what we find in the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-gita. Not even close.

These are the words of Wise people. Are all people wise ?

Just as in life - no one is a PhD from day 1. One has to start from school. There they will learn maths through pictures !!!! Are pictures maths ? No

But it is a method to train the mind for bigger and abstract knowledge.

Sometimes we forget to correlate our normal life with spiritual life. Look around - all are interpolation of the spiritual knowledge

mradam83

05 July 2012, 10:05 AM

Brahman has no name, except of course for names like "Brahman" and "God."

Brahman has no form, yet it contains everything.

Highly evolved Yogis have "given" us personal forms to worship Brahman. So, according to this, Hindus worship fictional images.

And the best part of this is that, by worshipping an unreal image, one will supposedly realize the formless Brahman, (which we only call Brahman for convenience, it really having no name).

Let me just say this: The above beliefs, though inconsistent and rather unflattering towards Hindus, are quite popular in modern Hindu circles. But they don't represent what we find in the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-gita. Not even close.

Namaste,

You see I sometimes do worry in case I fall into the category that a lot of western new age devotees do and treat being a Hindu like some sort of hippy fad.

I think it would do Hinduism a great disservice if more people adopted it and did it in the wrong way.

How do I steer away from that happening?

Pranams.

shiv.somashekhar

05 July 2012, 10:11 AM

Brahman has no form, yet it contains everything.

If Brahman has a form, then it cannot contain everything. For the form to mean anything, there has to be an entity external to this form to be able to recognize it.

In this context, what does it matter if Brahman has a form or not? I would like to hear the benefit of a form.

Let me just say this: The above beliefs, though inconsistent and rather unflattering towards Hindus, are quite popular in modern Hindu circles. But they don't represent what we find in the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-gita. Not even close.

Why is it unflattering? This view is not modern and has been around at least since the 8th century CE.

Just to be clear, it appears you are trying to prove Advaita is incorrect (and perhaps also prove the correctness of a different Vedanta doctrine) - without actually saying so. Is this correct?

philosoraptor

05 July 2012, 10:22 AM

If Brahman has a form, then it cannot contain everything. For the form to mean anything, there has to be an entity external to this form to be able to recognize it.

Disagree 100%. We don't say that the universe is formless. Yet there is nothing (from an empiric standpoint anyway) external to the universe.

In this context, what does it matter if Brahman has a form or not? I would like to hear the benefit of a form.

It only matters if the shAstras have an opinion on the subject, and we want to have the proper knowledge of shAstra so we can get moksha.

Why is it unflattering?

it = the claim that "Highly evolved Yogis have glimpsed these subtle forces at work and have given personal forms to them so that ordinary people may worship them. "

It is unflattering because it is basically saying that we worship fictional images. Although, because they supposedly came from "highly evolved yogis," we are supposed to ascribe greater importance to them than to say, a comic book drawing. But in the end, it is a figment of someone's imagination, which is saying that we knowingly worship imaginary images. No, I don't think that's particularly flattering of the intelligence of the Hindu community.

This view is not modern and has been around at least since the 8th century CE.

Please cite sources from the 8th century which indicate that forms like Krishna, Rama, etc are merely fictional constructs of "highly evolved" yogis.

Just to be clear, it appears you are trying to prove Advaita is incorrect (and perhaps also prove the correctness of a different Vedanta doctrine) - without actually saying so. Is this correct?

That is based on the assumption that the comments in question represent Advaita. I would not insult true Advaitins by equating these comments to their philosophy.

regards,

philosoraptor

05 July 2012, 10:24 AM

Namaste,

You see I sometimes do worry in case I fall into the category that a lot of western new age devotees do and treat being a Hindu like some sort of hippy fad.

I think it would do Hinduism a great disservice if more people adopted it and did it in the wrong way.

How do I steer away from that happening?

Pranams.

Pranams,

First, adopt sAttvik habits. Second, demand scriptural evidence for every claim that is made about what Hinduism supposedly teaches or does not teach. This will help you to separate the wheat from the chaff.

regards,

Believer

05 July 2012, 11:18 AM

Namaste,

New Age people have redefined Hinduism as what they would like to see it as, not what it really is. It is defined to be in line with their concepts/words/phrases, like 'yogic images', 'unconditional love', 'peaceful, loving and forgiving'. So, in essence, Hinduism is twisted and used as a validation tool for 'their' model of God, universe and good behavior. Throw in the modern day yoga practitioners, who think Hinduism is all (only) about calming yourself through breathing exercises and contortionism, and you get the complete 'fake' picture, which parallels their identity of the Divine.

Pranam.

philosoraptor

05 July 2012, 01:38 PM

What is Hinduism really? When we speak of "what does Hindu teach" and "what are Hindus supposed to believe," it seems implicit that we are speaking of Hinduism in this context as "sanAtana-dharma." But what is "sanAtana-dharma?" It cannot simply be whatever people professing to follow it believe, because those beliefs are varied and contradictory. As soon as we ask what "sanAtana-dharma" is and what it teaches, it is implicit that we need some authoritative source of knowledge that should be theoretically acceptable across sectarian boundries to answer the question.

The New-Age, Neo-Hindu types alluded to above give lip service to the Veda, but rarely consult it (or any ancillary scriptures) when it comes to formulating doctrine. What is striking on this and many other Hindu forums is that people will answer philosophy questions simply by saying whatever they like/whatever makes them feel good, without reference to any evidence. In the few cases where they quote from scripture to make a point, they either quote selectively, or they deliberately try to imply that the scriptures are contradictory, thus implying that you should put aside the scripture and simply listen to their imperfect opinions. Often these opinions have an atheistic, agnostic, or impersonalist character. Not surprisingly, they are often friendly towards non-Hindu religions, rationalize individual choice (as opposed to fidelity to scriptural rules), and adopt other world-views borrowed liberally from secular humanism.

shiv.somashekhar

05 July 2012, 06:05 PM

Disagree 100%. We don't say that the universe is formless. Yet there is nothing (from an empiric standpoint anyway) external to the universe.

That is not a relevant example because the universe is not considered infinite. There are also multiverse theories which propose the existence of multiple universes - none of which apply to Brahman. In the case of Brahman, accepting its infinite, boundless nature and at the same time claiming a form is a contradiction.

It only matters if the shAstras have an opinion on the subject, and we want to have the proper knowledge of shAstra so we can get moksha.

Can you produce scriptural evidence that accepting a specific form for Brahman is a prerequisite for Moksha? A quote (or quotes) that also specify what form this may be (along with size) will help.

Please cite sources from the 8th century which indicate that forms like Krishna, Rama, etc are merely fictional constructs of "highly evolved" yogis.

The opening statement from Shankara's (8th Century CE) Brahma sutra Bhashya says Jagat Mithya and Jiva = Brahman. Obviously, forms like Rama and Krishna cannot persist after Moksha. Forms of Brahman only exist at the Vyavaharika level, which is pre-moksha.

That is based on the assumption that the comments in question represent Advaita. I would not insult true Advaitins by equating these comments to their philosophy.

Can you quote the true position of Advaita on the eternal or temporal nature of the form of Rama?

Also, returning to the earlier point, are Rama and Krishna both valid forms of Brahman at the same time? How is that possible? I would view multiple,valid, simultaneous forms as formless too - formless as in absence of one definite form.

Thanks

philosoraptor

05 July 2012, 07:35 PM

That is not a relevant example because the universe is not considered infinite.

Pranams,

Your contention was that something that contains everything must necessarily be formless. The universe contains everything within sensory perception but is not formless. Now you are taking the position that this doesn't count, since the universe is not infinite. Given the scarcity of other infinite entities to disprove your example, I think you can surely appreciate the highly arbitrary nature of your logic.

Moreover, you haven't given a logical reason why an infinite entity containing everything must be by the very fact, formless. Your assertion that it must be formless because nothing exists outside it to perceive the form is not rational. This would be like saying that if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, then no sound is made.

In the case of Brahman, accepting its infinite, boundless nature and at the same time claiming a form is a contradiction.

This conclusion is the predictable result of applying our limited experience of form to the infinite. If what we see as having form is limited, it is not logical to assume that anything with form is by its very nature limited. The shrutis speak of a Brahman which has form and is yet unlimited. An infinite entity that has everything, and yet has no form, is a contradiction.

Accepting that Brahman is formless and yet contains everything is also a contradiction. We have no experience of a formless thing containing other things. If it is argued that analogies based on empirically-perceivable entities cannot be applied to the infinite, as I did with you, then my reply is - fine, let's forget these analogies and deal with what the shAstra-s say.

Can you produce scriptural evidence that accepting a specific form for Brahman is a prerequisite for Moksha? A quote (or quotes) that also specify what form this may be (along with size) will help.

Your specific question earlier was, "In this context, what does it matter if Brahman has a form or not? I would like to hear the benefit of a form." To which, my response was that, "It only matters if the shAstras have an opinion on the subject, and we want to have the proper knowledge of shAstra so we can get moksha." It is implicit in Vedaantic discourse that right knowledge from shAstra leads to moksha. Wrong knowledge does not. This is why it matters - because the shAstras do have an opinion on the subject. To acknowledge that it has an opinion and then say that it does not matter is a nAstika position. I assume for the purposes of this discussion that we at least theoretically accept the position of the Veda. If not, then this discussion isn't going to go very far.

You also ask what the benefit of worshipping Brahman as a being with form is. A similar question is asked by Arjuna in gItA 12.1 when he asks about those who worship Sri Krishna Himself vs those who worship "akShara." Sri Krishna replies (gItA 12.5) that both paths leads to Him, but the path of those who meditate on "avyakta" is more troublesome/difficult: kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām / avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaḿ dehavadbhir avāpyate //. That is His opinion on the subject.

You also ask if there is shAstric evidence recommending worship of God in His form. This is a slight change in course, but yes, there is. Naarada instructs Dhruva that worshipping the form of the Lord frees one from material influence and keeps him from falling down (bhAgavata purANa 4.8.52):
evaḿ bhagavato rūpaḿ subhadraḿ dhyāyato manaḥ |
nirvṛtyā parayā tūrṇaḿ sampannaḿ na nivartate ||

Of note, Dhruva took Naarada's advice to heart and got the direct vision of Vishnu Himself.

In the Vishnu Puraana, it is also explained that while no one knows Him in truth, the devas adore Vishnu in the forms which He assumes:

bhavato yat paraM tattvaM tanna jAnAti kashchana |
avatAreShu yadrUpaM tadarchchanti divaukasaH || VP 1.4.17 ||

Now, since you brought up the subject, do you mind if I ask you where in shAstra we see prescribed worship of an entity that is explicitly deemed to be formless? I can think of a handful of references myself, but I can think of many more references that describe Brahman as having form, attributes, and sentience.

The opening statement from Shankara's (8th Century CE) Brahma sutra Bhashya says Jagat Mithya and Jiva = Brahman. Obviously, forms like Rama and Krishna cannot persist after Moksha. Forms of Brahman only exist at the Vyavaharika level, which is pre-moksha.

But where is it explicitly stated that forms like Raama and Krishna are fictional constructs invented by yogis? That was the specific claim of the poster to whom I responded. Merely saying that world is false and/or ceases to exist after moksha does not answer this question. It's also not consistent, but that's another issue. The fact that Shankaraachaarya would prescribe worship of Govinda specifically is not consistent with the idea that he considered Govinda to be the fictional outpouring of some yogi's imagination. If it is argued that all entities in the pre-moksha stage are unreal, then prescribing worship of one over another is highly arbitrary, especially if they are all, as the poster claimed, forms invented by some yogi with no truth in reality.

Can you quote the true position of Advaita on the eternal or temporal nature of the form of Rama?

Advaitins can do this if they wish. My response was to the poster who is obviously following a Neo-Advaitic line of thinking.

Also, returning to the earlier point, are Rama and Krishna both valid forms of Brahman at the same time? How is that possible?

Why not? Why can't an all-powerful being exist in multiple places at the same time? He has done it according to our scriptures. The Bhaagavata describes how He was seen by Naarada in many different places attending to different functions of the state, interacting with different wives, etc. We also have the story of the rAsa-lIla in which He expanded Himself into different forms to dance with each of the gopIs.

The conclusion is that God is quite capable of outdoing our limited assumptions of what an unlimited God can and cannot do.

I would view multiple,valid, simultaneous forms as formless too - formless as in absence of one definite form.

So in essence, you see the multiple forms coming from a single entity as evidence that that single entity has no form. According to you, the manifested entities contain attributes that are not present in their source. This would be like saying that the sun must not be hot because it emits so many sun-rays which contain heat.

Note that I am merely attacking this position on logical grounds because you have chosen to assert its correctness based on (faulty) logic. Of course, we could just go back to what the shruti says instead.

shiv.somashekhar

06 July 2012, 12:51 PM

Your contention was that something that contains everything must necessarily be formless. The universe contains everything within sensory perception but is not formless. Now you are taking the position that this doesn't count, since the universe is not infinite. Given the scarcity of other infinite entities to disprove your example, I think you can surely appreciate the highly arbitrary nature of your logic.
The logic is as simple as can be. Something that is boundless and infinite cannot have shape and size. Surely, you are not contesting this? And I am sure you agree that the universe is not seen as boundless/infinite when one is attempting to identify its shape.

We have enough abeda Sruti where it is laid out in explicit terms that Brahman is without form. Now one needs to be reconcile this with the Brahman who may have a form. In my neutral opinion, this round goes to Advaita. Advaita has a very believable approach in putting forms into perspective by the Vyavaharika-Paramartika difference. Other Vedanta schools have failed to provide a convincing rationale for the formless, Nirguna Brahman, because there is no place for such a formless Brahman in their doctrines.

Setting aside scripture for a moment, there is the unanswered question of the relevance of assigning a form to Brahman, which fails basic logic tests. Why would this infinite Brahman have a human form - coincidentally one of South Asian race? We look the way we do for specific reasons - none of which apply to Brahman. We have eyes as sense organs to be able to see. This does not apply to Brahman as he would not need eyes to see. It is far more believable that these forms were created by us because it easier to connect on a personal level with a God who has a human, recognizable form than say, an invisble abstraction or a God shaped liked a cube or an odd shaped block of wood. Obviously then, Gods are created to mirror local traditions as in dark skin, curds rice, ear-rings, silk-dhotis, etc. Krishna naturally would become the most popular, owing to the attractive hero image.

Between Shastra and logic, the latter has to take precedence or else the entire system becomes meaningless.

Accepting that Brahman is formless and yet contains everything is also a contradiction. We have no experience of a formless thing containing other things.
That is correct. We have three choices -
1. Brahman is formless and contains everything
2. Brahman has a form (human-like) and contains everything inside this human form
3. Neither of the above are true.

Sorting these three positions in the order of believability in descending order, I sort them as 3,1,2. 3 appears on top of my ranking because there is no way anyone can know if 1 or 2 is true and if someone does know, we have no way of knowing this person knows for real.

You also ask if there is shAstric evidence recommending worship of God in His form.
I did not ask that. As I explained aboved, it is common knowledge that various forms are associated with Brahman to make worship and personal connections easier.

The fact that Shankaraachaarya would prescribe worship of Govinda specifically is not consistent with the idea that he considered Govinda to be the fictional outpouring of some yogi's imagination. If it is argued that all entities in the pre-moksha stage are unreal, then prescribing worship of one over another is highly arbitrary, especially if they are all, as the poster claimed, forms invented by some yogi with no truth in reality.
I am not aware of this poster and I cannot speak for him. Shankara proposed worship of Krishna, Shiva, Sharada et al., and did not rank them in any order. This is standard Advaita 101. People who choose to follow Bhakti can pick any of these forms for worship.

The reason I am here is, according to Advaita, Brahman has no form, which means forms like Krishna are not eternal. Here and elsewhere, you have been trying to show these forms are eternal and that souls are distinct - all of which is debating Advaita without naming it. I am fine with it as I am not out to defend or criticize any doctrine. It just makes it easier for everyone if you make the goal of your postings clear so the right people can jump into the discussion.

Thanks

wundermonk

06 July 2012, 01:02 PM

Sorry, I could not go through all the previous posts so apologies if this has been covered before.

If Brahman is the ground of everything else, i.e., if Brahman is the ultimate ontological support, then it cannot have a form. Apart from scriptures, the Nyaya attempts to establish this as follows.

Per Nyaya, all forms are made up of atoms in different combinations. Since Brahman is ontologically prior to atoms (although Brahman, atoms, selves are temporally coeval), Brahman cannot be made up of atoms. So, not being made up of atoms implies that Brahman is formless.

philosoraptor

06 July 2012, 03:50 PM

The logic is as simple as can be. Something that is boundless and infinite cannot have shape and size. Surely, you are not contesting this?

Namaste,

The flaw in your logic is that logic is based on information gathered through sensory perception, and yet you are using logic to make conclusive statements about the nature of an entity that is beyond sensory perception.

The shrutis are clear that He has form and yet is boundless. Take, for example, the shvetAshvatara upaniShad 3.14-16:

III-14: That Infinite Being has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes and a thousand feet enveloping the whole universe on all sides. He exists beyond ten fingers.

III-15: That which is, that which was, and that which is yet to be - all this is nothing but this Infinite Being. Though He grows beyond His own nature into the form of the objective universe, He still remains the lord of immortality.

III-16: With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes, heads and mouths everywhere, with ears everywhere, That exists, pervading everything in the universe.

Note that this vision of an entity with form and yet all-pervasiveness is also given to Arjuna:

Bg 11.10-11 (http://vedabase.com/en/bg/11/10-11)— Arjuna saw in that universal form unlimited mouths, unlimited eyes, unlimited wonderful visions. The form was decorated with many celestial ornaments and bore many divine upraised weapons. He wore celestial garlands and garments, and many divine scents were smeared over His body. All was wondrous, brilliant, unlimited, all-expanding.

Now, just to clarify your statements, are you contesting the authority of shAstra? Because the shAstras are clear that He has form and yet is all-pervading.

We have enough abeda Sruti where it is laid out in explicit terms that Brahman is without form. Now one needs to be reconcile this with the Brahman who may have a form. In my neutral opinion, this round goes to Advaita. Advaita has a very believable approach in putting forms into perspective by the Vyavaharika-Paramartika difference.

A neutral party (which you claim to be), would note that the Upanishads do not explicitly spell out the vyavAharika/paramArthika difference in the way in which Advaitins employ it, namely, to explain away all references to form and difference whenever and wherever they occur, which is often in the shrutis. This paradigm is thus an external, man-made imposition by which the authority of the shruti is subtly denigrated. Whenever form is invoked, the Advaitin will say, "this is only true in the vyavahArika sense," but in fact such disclaimers do not occur in said shrutis. Thus, this is only convincing to people who want to believe in Advaita, and not to those looking for a faithful explanation of the shruti.

Other Vedanta schools have failed to provide a convincing rationale for the formless, Nirguna Brahman, because there is no place for such a formless Brahman in their doctrines.

So far as I have seen, no school of Vedanta with which I am familiar has a problem with the idea of a "nirguNa" brahman, understanding of course that "guNa" refers to the modes of prakRti. As far as your interpretation of "nirgUna" as literally meaning no qualities, such a description of Brahman is contradicted by numerous shrutis in which Brahman is described as having qualities, one of which I already quoted above. There is also bRhadAraNyakopaniShad 4.3.7:

IV-iii-7: 'Which is the self?' 'This infinite entity (Purusha) that is identified with the intellect and is in the midst of the organs, the (self-effulgent) light within the heart (intellect). Assuming the likeness (of the intellect), it moves between the two worlds; it thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were. Being identified with dream, it transcends this world - the forms of death (ignorance etc.).'

and chAndogyopaniShad 1.6.7-8:

I-vi-7: His eyes are bright like a red lotus. His name is 'ut'. He has risen above all evils. Verily, he who knows thus rises above all evils.

and IshopaniShad 15-16:

15. The face of the Truth (ie., Purusha in the solar orb) is veiled by a bright vessel. Mayst thou unveil it, O Sun, so as to be perceived by me whose dharma is truth.

16. O nourisher, pilgrim of the solitude, controller, absorber (of all rasas), offspring of Prajapati, cast away thy rays, gather them up and give up thy radiating brilliance. That form of thine, most graceful, I may behold. He, the Purusha (in the solar orb), I am.

and kaThopaniShad:

2-III-8. But subtler than Avyakta is Purusha, all-pervading and without a linga (distinguishing mark) indeed, knowing whom a mortal becomes freed and attains immortality.

2-III-9. His form does not stand within the scope of vision; none beholds Him with the eye. By the intellect restraining the mind, and through meditation is He revealed. Those who know this become immortal.

... to name just a few. Alltogether this is an impressive list of mainstream shrutis which do describe Brahman has having qualities and form. And, these are translations from Advaitin scholars to boot.

I'm sure you can agree that, to a neutral party looking for understanding of the shruti as it is, explicit references to Brahman as "purusha," having "form," "light," "brilliance," etc are the exact opposite of saying that Brahman is formless and without qualities. I'm sure you can also appreciate that, given the absence of context to suggest that these references refer to an illusory level of perception, it is difficult for a truly neutral person to accept that all these references to a Brahman with form and qualities (and there are many from my readings), were meant to be taken by the student as illusory. Indeed, the very idea that the shrutis would spend so much time discussing an illusory level of perception, when they really want us to transcend such illusory perceptions, is simply not sensible.

Setting aside scripture for a moment, there is the unanswered question of the relevance of assigning a form to Brahman, which fails basic logic tests.

The question as posed above is simply not relevant to the discussion. If shruti says Brahman has form, then He has form. End of story.

Must we disagree with shruti merely because it does not gel with our sectarian views?

Why would this infinite Brahman have a human form - coincidentally one of South Asian race?

I'm curious - how many blue-skinned, four-armed people do you meet during your everyday walks in India? And since I'm assuming (call it a hunch), that you don't meet many such people, can we reject your strawman that Brahman is depicted in the form of a South Asian?

We look the way we do for specific reasons - none of which apply to Brahman. We have eyes as sense organs to be able to see. This does not apply to Brahman as he would not need eyes to see. It is far more believable that these forms were created by us because it easier to connect on a personal level with a God who has a human, recognizable form than say, an invisble abstraction or a God shaped liked a cube or an odd shaped block of wood. Obviously then, Gods are created to mirror local traditions as in dark skin, curds rice, ear-rings, silk-dhotis, etc. Krishna naturally would become the most popular, owing to the attractive hero image.

See, it is hard to figure out where you are coming from with this. On one hand, I was responding to a poster who clearly endorses a neo-Advaitin point of view. Then, you tried to argue that the poster's views were based on Advaita and had a history going back to 8th century. But here, you are again employing a Neo-Advaitin standard of logic, i.e. "It is far more believable that these forms were created by us because it easier to connect on a personal level with a God who has a human, recognizable form..." This is the second or third time I am going to ask this question - where are the references dating back to 8th century which explicitly state that "human" forms of Brahman as discussed in our shAstras are merely man-made fictions?

This is not a difficult question to answer - either (1) there is such evidence, and thus your contention that this view is rooted in antiquity stands supported, or (2) there is no such evidence, in which case you must admit that you (and others) are modifying Advaita somewhat to fit your biases.

Between Shastra and logic, the latter has to take precedence or else the entire system becomes meaningless.

Here we must simply agree to disagree. As far as I am aware, all Vedantins accept the authority of shAstra on the subject of suprasensory entities. It is logical to assume that logic itself has limits about deducing the nature of something that cannot be perceived by us.

That is correct. We have three choices -
1. Brahman is formless and contains everything
2. Brahman has a form (human-like) and contains everything inside this human form
3. Neither of the above are true.

Sorting these three positions in the order of believability in descending order, I sort them as 3,1,2. 3 appears on top of my ranking because there is no way anyone can know if 1 or 2 is true and if someone does know, we have no way of knowing this person knows for real.

You are entitled to your views. Let us just agree that those aren't the views one gets from a straightforward reading of shruti.

I am not aware of this poster and I cannot speak for him. Shankara proposed worship of Krishna, Shiva, Sharada et al., and did not rank them in any order. This is standard Advaita 101. People who choose to follow Bhakti can pick any of these forms for worship.

So you say, but strangely enough, Sri Shankaraachaarya does not seem at all consistent on that point. Quoting from another thread:

1) Some quote 'vAyu, tvameva pratyaxam brahmAsI' to suggest that Adi Shankaracharya preferred Vayu worship over Vishnu, showing that Vayu can be equal to or greater than Vishnu.

Firstly, I will explain how Shankaracharya interpreted it in light of Advaita and then explain the Vishishtadvaita view on this. According to the Advaita philosophy of Shankara, only Brahman exists. But at the vyAvahArika sat, Shankara accepts a saguna brahman, and he identifies that Saguna Brahman with only nArAyaNa. Ref: BrihadaranyakOpanishad where he states, 'Sa AtmA nArAyaNa' and in Gita BhAshya 'nArAyanA parO vyaktAt'. So, Brahman is nArAyaNa and sagunOpAsana is directed to him.

In Gita BhAshya, in the slOkas describing worship of anya devatA as avidhi pUrvakam, Shankaracharya not only upholds worship of Krishna, but also denounces worship of other devatAs. He specifically names some deities, including Vinayaka.

So, the statement 'vAyu, tvamevam pratyaxam brahmAsi' is interpreted by Shankara that considering vAyu is perceptible, he is to be meditated upon, ie, at the vyAvahArika sath, nArAyaNa, who is the AtmA of vAyu, is to be meditated in preference of nArAyaNa who is urukramA (trivikrama).

This is consistent with his interpretation of antaryAmi brAhmana as 'sa AtmA nArAyaNa' and his declaration that eka bhakti to Krishna alone is the correct way, denouncing worship of anya devatA.

Furthermore, some may argue he declared Shiva as sarvag~na in KenOpanishad. However, that doesn't mean Shiva is Brahman. Many rishis are sarvag~na on account of possessing knowledge of Brahman, similarly, Shiva is held as sarvag~na.

Shankaracharya has condemned anya devata worship. In Sahasranama BhAshya, he states 'Kesava' means the Ruler of Brahma and Rudra.

Of course, I could look up the references myself, but I'm in the office and don't have access to my library at the moment.

The reason I am here is, according to Advaita, Brahman has no form, which means forms like Krishna are not eternal. Here and elsewhere, you have been trying to show these forms are eternal and that souls are distinct - all of which is debating Advaita without naming it. I am fine with it as I am not out to defend or criticize any doctrine. It just makes it easier for everyone if you make the goal of your postings clear so the right people can jump into the discussion.

Thanks

I have no problem with having a discussion on Advaita. But as I said earlier, my original remarks were to challenge the highly dubious reasoning employed by the Neo-Advaitin to assert, among other things, that the forms of Brahman we worship are fictions invented by some yogi. It looks like you agree with that point of view, but other than to state that the forms are not eternal, you have not produced any evidence showing that Shankaraachaarya agrees with the idea that they are fictional creations. If it is your view that "non-eternality" by its very fact implies "fictional construct," and that Shankaraachaarya made no distinctions between the worship of different fictional gods, then let me ask you this:

According to your understanding of Advaita, would it be acceptable for, say, a White person from the West who feels uncomfortable worshipping Vedic deities (because, you claim they look like South Asians) to instead create an image of Superman to worship, do puja to it, and by so doing, expect to gain liberation? Would his worship be any less efficacious than my worship of Krishna? Why or why not? I await your answer with great interest.

regards,

Omkara

07 July 2012, 09:04 AM

philosoraptor

08 July 2012, 09:39 AM

smaranam

08 July 2012, 10:11 AM

But that is a very valid problem i have yet to come to terms with.....if god has form,why,of all the known and unknown species in the universe,would he/she look anything like a HUMAN BEING?OR EVEN A MAMAL ,for that matter?
would be grateful if someone can answer this.

Namaste OMkara

He takes various forms for different purposes as stated below, but His primordial form is the highest, and humans are apparently created close in image ONLY, not the other way around.
If other extraterrestrial species are more developed than us technology-wise, that may be but their most evolved form as well as human form is close to the Lord's form although He is simultaneously chaturbhuja, simultaneously infinite-bhuja, also infinite-eyed.

SahastrAksha sahastrabAhu dashANgula

It is hard for us to be convinced that we could be this close to the Supreme in form ONLY. We are still under the 3 guNas and not in anyway closely resembling in that sense. Some Devas come relatively close to Narayana and Shambhu.

Let us not forget that He takes / exists in the form of
1. the wild boar - VarAha (and this is SwetaVaraha kalpa, He destroyed demon Hiranyaksha)
2. the fish - Matsya to save life
3. turtle - KUrma to churn the milk ocean and seperate poison from nectar
4. VAman - a dwarf
5. Narsimha - half man-like half lion-like (feline)
6. Elephant-like head
7. Mukhya prAn-vAyu takes the form of a VAnar (Hanuman)

Please note that these fish, turtle and boar are not the size of the counterpart species on earth. They are scaled down, but only the FORM is similar.

Further, one may ask about peacock feathers and other things. Life exists in the Universe where there is water, and our planet was chosen by Lord to be blessed with water and organic life. If there is another earth elsewhere He goes there too when its their turn. The peacocks parrots and monkeys are created there too so they participate in His Leelas.

It is not a random accident. It is all in His plan.

Perhaps i should not be saying all this if people on this thread are going to laugh at it.

Om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya
_/\_

smaranam

08 July 2012, 10:53 AM

Apart from scriptures, the Nyaya attempts to establish this as follows.

Per Nyaya, all forms are made up of atoms in different combinations. Since Brahman is ontologically prior to atoms (although Brahman, atoms, selves are temporally coeval), Brahman cannot be made up of atoms. So, not being made up of atoms implies that Brahman is formless.

:)

Hi Wundermonk. You know, what you wrote may be in the Nyaya shastra, but it makes me smile nevertheless. It is not what Veda says.

That line in red is the whole problem, why people have a hard time understanding or accepting the Lord's Form.

Because they base it on this premise, which does not come from the Ved.
Hence all on top of it crumbles and falls apart.

So we have to start with the right premise.

So, ShrimAn NArAyaN is made up of atoms?! You mean actually surrounded by prakRti like us ?!?! protons neutrons electrons quarks? That jaD? Talk about sUkshma.

OK, here is a video. If it makes tears roll down the viewers eyes, then we can ask them if He is made up of atoms :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t7GYCkQOKw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsaC2wJqSSg

hari om namo nArAyaNAya~
om namo nArAyaNAya,
hari om namo nArAyaNaya~

wundermonk

08 July 2012, 12:51 PM

Per Nyaya, all forms are made up of atoms in different combinations. You know, what you wrote may be in the Nyaya shastra, but it makes me smile nevertheless. It is not what Veda says.

Namaste smaranam,

I gave you the Astika Nyaya darshana view. Clearly, they have their own interpretation of the Vedas and this interpretation is at odds with those of other Astika darshanas.

mradam83

08 July 2012, 03:32 PM

Pranams,

First, adopt sAttvik habits. Second, demand scriptural evidence for every claim that is made about what Hinduism supposedly teaches or does not teach. This will help you to separate the wheat from the chaff.

regards,

Namaste,

One thing that strikes me about being a Hindu is that Scripture always strikes me as the summing up of common sense and putting truths down so that people can understand this.

But from what you say above, do you say that scripture supercedes what we may understand and we must rely on scripture as the ultimate authority?

I would be interested in clarification on this.

Pranams.

shiv.somashekhar

08 July 2012, 04:22 PM

Namaste,

The flaw in your logic is that logic is based on information gathered through sensory perception, and yet you are using logic to make conclusive statements about the nature of an entity that is beyond sensory perception.

Forms are not beyond sensory perception. With all due respect, a South Asian human form clad in a silk dhoti is certainly not - regardless of size.

The shrutis are clear that He has form and yet is boundless. Take, for example, the shvetAshvatara upaniShad 3.14-16:

That is a metaphor to illustrate the power of Brahman. Alexander was a lion does not mean he was actually a lion. I do not see it as necessary to literally interpret this Sruti - just like I would not literally interpret angushta matram.

Now, just to clarify your statements, are you contesting the authority of shAstra? Because the shAstras are clear that He has form and yet is all-pervading.

That is interpretation. Like I said earlier, the concept of "clear Shastra" does not mean anything outside one's own tradition. tat tvam asi means different things to different doctrines or else, we would not have multiple doctrines at all! So let us not get into the correct meaning of Shastra as that is a never ending discussion and requires faith and sentiment as the driving force. Let us stick with facts, which are -
1. Sruti is not consistent. We can find support for pretty much any position as long as we are willing to dig deep enough and have the genious to interpret, which is how one gives it a consistent appearance.
2. In this context, we can find support for both a formless Brahman as well as a Brahman with form. Obviously, there will be interpretation to reconcile the two contradictions. Advaita reconciles it in favor of a formless Brahman while Vaishnava doctrines go the other way - in support of Brahman with form, which they identify with the form of Hari.

So far as I have seen, no school of Vedanta with which I am familiar has a problem with the idea of a "nirguNa" brahman, understanding of course that "guNa" refers to the modes of prakRti. As far as your interpretation of "nirgUna" as literally meaning no qualities, such a description of Brahman is contradicted by numerous shrutis in which Brahman is described as having qualities, one of which I already quoted above. There is also bRhadAraNyakopaniShad 4.3.7: and chAndogyopaniShad 1.6.7-8:
and IshopaniShad 15-16:
and kaThopaniShad:
... to name just a few. Alltogether this is an impressive list of mainstream shrutis which do describe Brahman has having qualities and form. And, these are translations from Advaitin scholars to boot.
It is all at the Vyavaharika level and so, there is no conflict according to Advaita.

I'm sure you can agree that, to a neutral party looking for understanding of the shruti as it is, explicit references to Brahman as "purusha," having "form," "light," "brilliance," etc are the exact opposite of saying that Brahman is formless and without qualities. I'm sure you can also appreciate that, given the absence of context to suggest that these references refer to an illusory level of perception, it is difficult for a truly neutral person to accept that all these references to a Brahman with form and qualities (and there are many from my readings), were meant to be taken by the student as illusory. Indeed, the very idea that the shrutis would spend so much time discussing an illusory level of perception, when they really want us to transcend such illusory perceptions, is simply not sensible.
That is opinion. Advaitins clearly have a different take on this, which they consider to be sensible.

The question as posed above is simply not relevant to the discussion. If shruti says Brahman has form, then He has form. End of story.
As explained above, this is an oversimplification of the issue and does not work.

Must we disagree with shruti merely because it does not gel with our sectarian views?
Advaitins do not disagree with any Sruti. The entire corpus aligns with their doctrine. On the other hand, Madhva had to twist tat ttvam asi into atat tvam asi to give it a non-advaitic meaning. He had to resort to a similar trick with aham brahmasmi.

I'm curious - how many blue-skinned, four-armed people do you meet during your everyday walks in India? And since I'm assuming (call it a hunch), that you don't meet many such people, can we reject your strawman that Brahman is depicted in the form of a South Asian?
Not clear what this means?

See, it is hard to figure out where you are coming from with this. On one hand, I was responding to a poster who clearly endorses a neo-Advaitin point of view. Then, you tried to argue that the poster's views were based on Advaita and had a history going back to 8th century. But here, you are again employing a Neo-Advaitin standard of logic, i.e. "It is far more believable that these forms were created by us because it easier to connect on a personal level with a God who has a human, recognizable form..." This is the second or third time I am going to ask this question - where are the references dating back to 8th century which explicitly state that "human" forms of Brahman as discussed in our shAstras are merely man-made fictions?
You are right. The point of formless Brahman being not new is different from formless making more sense than a formed Brahman. My entry here was to prove the former and not the latter - which is more a Advaita vs. others discussion, which I will drop.

So you say, but strangely enough, Sri Shankaraachaarya does not seem at all consistent on that point. Quoting from another thread:
Shankara is pretty consistent. Most people get confused with Advaita as they do not understand the concept of Vyavaharika vs. Paramartika or the difference between pre-moksha and post-moksha.
Please check Atma Bodha 60, which is authored by Shankara himself. I do not have the Upadesa Sahasri or I would point to more material to show his position on the form of Brahman.

According to your understanding of Advaita, would it be acceptable for, say, a White person from the West who feels uncomfortable worshipping Vedic deities (because, you claim they look like South Asians) to instead create an image of Superman to worship, do puja to it, and by so doing, expect to gain liberation? Would his worship be any less efficacious than my worship of Krishna? Why or why not? I await your answer with great interest.
That would be a question for Advaitins. Hopefully, someone here can answer this question.At this point, I think it is clear the formless Brahman is not neo-vedanta and comes from Shankara, without concerning ourselves with the correctness of Shankara.

Thanks

shiv.somashekhar

08 July 2012, 04:25 PM

:)

Hi Wundermonk. You know, what you wrote may be in the Nyaya shastra, but it makes me smile nevertheless. It is not what Veda says.

Jut curious.

So, to understand this statement, do you think the Nyaya authors did not read the full veda or do you think your interpretation is more sound than theirs?

Thanks

smaranam

08 July 2012, 10:09 PM

Just curious.

So, to understand this statement, do you think the Nyaya authors did not read the full veda or do you think your interpretation is more sound than theirs?

Thanks

Namaste

I understand that the NyayIs were rational intellect-logic-people. At first i assumed that they cared more for logic and tarka than the Ved.

Wundermonk understood where i came from so he explained that he had presented the 'Astik' stance of Nyaya darshan. So i thought to myself "fair enough"

That being said, i still maintain that what they have done is this:

Ved: A is B
Nyaya premise: C
Nyaya inference : Therefore D

Ved: Brahman is beyond matter, prakRti
Nyaya reasoning-premise: Only matter can take forms
Nyaya inference: Therefore Brahman can't possibly have a form.

I am not claiming to be a Ved-shAstri. However, from what i can tell there is no such explicit statement in the Vedas to the effect: "Only matter can take forms."

That surely came from the NyAyIs' reasoning power, intellect? Based on pratyaksha pramAN ? (concrete evidence).

continued...

----~*~*~*~*~------

smaranam

08 July 2012, 10:14 PM

continued...

----~*~*~*~*~------

Now, i am not interested in debating with anyone regarding whether Brahman has form or is formless based on reasoning, intellect, tarka or any other means.

To me it is simple. The Lord is BOTH. He has a form, and numerous other forms, (not the material forms - of matter - ), He has a svabhAv like we do, He is a person too , and the formlessness is also His aspect only.

The Lord is so kind He knows each one's desire more that we know it ourselves.

Some revel in the formlessness of purusha, the stillness, sthir, achala. So He makes that happen from within the heart, antaryAmi that he is.

Some yearn to see His form, serve Him, associate with Him in various ways. and He
keeps giving them intuitive cues, sends them to the right scriptures, Guru, devotees, gives them His association.

All from within the heart. KRshNa always reciprocates as we surrender.

praNam

philosoraptor

09 July 2012, 11:02 AM

Namaste,

One thing that strikes me about being a Hindu is that Scripture always strikes me as the summing up of common sense and putting truths down so that people can understand this.

But from what you say above, do you say that scripture supercedes what we may understand and we must rely on scripture as the ultimate authority?

I would be interested in clarification on this.

Pranams.

From a traditional Vedaantic point of view, the Vedas are the authority on all matters beyond sensory perception. We cannot use logical or sensory perception to establish the nature of Brahman, becaues we have no experience of Brahman. We need the Vedas to tell us about that.

We do have experience of the world around us, and we can use logic to help understand the correct meaning of Vedic statements concerning the world around us.

regards,

philosoraptor

09 July 2012, 11:45 AM

Namaste,

Forms are not beyond sensory perception. With all due respect, a South Asian human form clad in a silk dhoti is certainly not - regardless of size.

But the form of Brahman is beyond sensory perception. Again, from shAstra:

na tu māṁ śakyase draṣṭum anenaiva sva-cakṣuṣā |
divyaṁ dadāmi te cakṣuḥ paśya me yogam aiśvaram || gItA 11.8 ||

But you cannot see Me with your present eyes. Therefore I give you divine eyes. Behold My mystic opulence! (gItA 11.8)

This establishes that there are indeed suprasensory entities which posess form and attributes, and which cannot be seen unless one has been gifted with the grace or power to see them.

That is a metaphor to illustrate the power of Brahman.

In that case, you have to assume that what Arjuna saw was also a metaphor:

aneka-bāhūdara-vaktra-netraṁ paśyāmi tvāṁ sarvato �nanta-rūpam |
nāntaṁ na madhyaṁ na punas tavādiṁ paśyāmi viśveśvara viśva-rūpa || gItA 11.16 ||

kirīṭinaṁ gadinaṁ cakriṇaṁ ca tejo-rāśiṁ sarvato dīptimantam |
paśyāmi tvāṁ durnirīkṣyaṁ samantād dīptānalārka-dyutim aprameyam || gItA 11.17 ||

"O Lord of the universe, O universal form, I see in Your body many, many arms, bellies, mouths and eyes, expanded everywhere, without limit. I see in You no end, no middle and no beginning.
Your form is difﬁcult to see because of its glaring effulgence, spreading on all sides, like blazing ﬁre or the immeasurable radiance of the sun. Yet I see this glowing form everywhere, adorned with various crowns, clubs and discs. "

Here is a clear example not just of being told of a form with thousands of arms, heads, feet, eyes, etc but of testimony by a devotee gifted with such vision that he is seeing precisely that (which is also described in the Upanishads). Looking at it objectively, it is hard to conclude that said vision is intended to be seen by the reader as metaphor.

Moreover, the view that the infinite-armed form is a metaphor for the power of a brahman without attributes is self-contradictory, since it accepts at least one attribute of brahman - namely, power.

That is interpretation. Like I said earlier, the concept of "clear Shastra" does not mean anything outside one's own tradition.

In my experience, the people who take this position are those who want to rationalize extensive reinterpretation of statements that don't require interpretation.

1. Sruti is not consistent. We can find support for pretty much any position as long as we are willing to dig deep enough and have the genious to interpret, which is how one gives it a consistent appearance.

Orthodox Vedantins would say that shruti is consistent, and that the contradictions are only apparent. There is no sense in placing a premium on a body of knowledge which is admitted to be internally contradictory.

2. In this context, we can find support for both a formless Brahman as well as a Brahman with form. Obviously, there will be interpretation to reconcile the two contradictions. Advaita reconciles it in favor of a formless Brahman while Vaishnava doctrines go the other way - in support of Brahman with form, which they identify with the form of Hari.

The Advaitin method of reconciling the apparent contradictions is simply not convincing. They argue that the statements describing form and attributes refer to an illusory level of perception. This is just a roundabout way of saying that those statements are false, while only the statements indicating no attributes are true. Compared to this, the vishishtaadvaita commentator for example is equally at home with both bedha and abedha shrutis, and does not have to argue that one or the other refers to illusory perception only.

It is all at the Vyavaharika level and so, there is no conflict according to Advaita.

Again, let me just point out that there is nothing in the quoted texts to indicate that, "these statements about form refer to a vyavhArika level of perception only." That is an external paradigm imposed by Advaitin commentators to force the Upanishads into line with their views.

That is opinion. Advaitins clearly have a different take on this, which they consider to be sensible.

That's precisely my point. The selective denigration of texts makes sense only to those who want to believe in Advaita, and not to someone starting off with a neutral disposition

I'm curious - how many blue-skinned, four-armed people do you meet during your everyday walks in India? And since I'm assuming (call it a hunch), that you don't meet many such people, can we reject your strawman that Brahman is depicted in the form of a South Asian?
Not clear what this means?

I'm sorry, let me be more clear. Your argument that forms like Narayana and Krishna are created by South Asian people in their own image is a strawman, because Narayana and Krishna do not look like brown-skinned South Asians. As far as your argument that they must be South Asian because they wear dhotis, I would argue that there is nothing inherently unbelievable about an ancestral, spiritual culture in which devas and prajApatis wore dhotis, from which we Indians inherited many of our customs. Getting back to the earlier point, you have argued that Indians created god-images according to their own imagination, but Sri Sankaracharya never endorsed such a view. It think it is wise that you appear to be backing down from that view, because it leads to ludicrous conclusions. If Krishna is a made-up form whose worship Sankaracharya endorsed, then it follows that one can make up any form and worship that. Then you would have to counter that by saying that some illusory forms are somehow more real than others, which would stretch the limits of believability.

The issue that Advaitins believe forms to be temporary was not being contested by me (though I do contest its believability on scriptural grounds). What I do contest is the idea that Advaitins consider Brahman's forms to be the result of some yogi's imagination. That is simply ridiculous, and makes us all out to be worshippers of false images. I cannot imagine an orthodox Advaitin admitting that there is no difference between the worship of Narayana and the worship of a made-up god-image.

regards,

mradam83

09 July 2012, 11:55 AM

From a traditional Vedaantic point of view, the Vedas are the authority on all matters beyond sensory perception. We cannot use logical or sensory perception to establish the nature of Brahman, becaues we have no experience of Brahman. We need the Vedas to tell us about that.

We do have experience of the world around us, and we can use logic to help understand the correct meaning of Vedic statements concerning the world around us.

regards,

Namaste,

I (Sort of) get this, so basically is the Vedas seen as something that's beyond human creation and divinely revealed/inspired?

Or in the tradition, are the Vedas supposed to literally come from gods?

Pranams.

shiv.somashekhar

09 July 2012, 12:27 PM

Namaste,

I (Sort of) get this, so basically is the Vedas seen as something that's beyond human creation and divinely revealed/inspired?

Or in the tradition, are the Vedas supposed to literally come from gods?

Pranams.

The Veda is considered beginningless and therefore can have no author - which also dismisses the authorship of a God or Gods.

This idea of apaurusheyatva was advanced by kumarila of purva mimamsa when debating Buddhists and was retained by subsequent schools of vedanta like advaita, dvaita, etc. As I recall, Nyaya differs here in accepting divine authorship for the veda, but I need to go back and confirm this.

shiv.somashekhar

09 July 2012, 09:41 PM

Namaste,

But the form of Brahman is beyond sensory perception. Again, from shAstra:

This establishes that there are indeed suprasensory entities which posess form and attributes, and which cannot be seen unless one has been gifted with the grace or power to see them.

In that case, you have to assume that what Arjuna saw was also a metaphor:

Here is a clear example not just of being told of a form with thousands of arms, heads, feet, eyes, etc but of testimony by a devotee gifted with such vision that he is seeing precisely that (which is also described in the Upanishads). Looking at it objectively, it is hard to conclude that said vision is intended to be seen by the reader as metaphor.

Arjuna was able to describe what he saw and we are able to picture it as well. A large form with several eyes and some kind of display about the future is still well within our realm of human experience. However, this is not the main purpose of this discussion and I will drop this. Let us agree to disagree that we see different options as logical.

Orthodox Vedantins would say that shruti is consistent, and that the contradictions are only apparent. There is no sense in placing a premium on a body of knowledge which is admitted to be internally contradictory.

Sruti is consistent only when one resolves these contradictions. Else, it is inconsistent as yourself have admitted. The contradictions are not something to be brushed aside. As many as of 22 sutra bhashyas were possible for one single text of 555 sutras - which makes it clear that these contradictions are huge. I will repeat that this consistence across the entire canon is limited to within a doctrine. If one views Sruti neutrally or taking multiple doctrines into account, it is no longer consistent. I can provide examples such as brahmano hi pratishta aham, the advaitic mahavakyas, etc, which receive very different interpretations from different schools.

I'm sorry, let me be more clear. Your argument that forms like Narayana and Krishna are created by South Asian people in their own image is a strawman, because Narayana and Krishna do not look like brown-skinned South Asians. As far as your argument that they must be South Asian because they wear dhotis, I would argue that there is nothing inherently unbelievable about an ancestral, spiritual culture in which devas and prajApatis wore dhotis, from which we Indians inherited many of our customs. Getting back to the earlier point, you have argued that Indians created god-images according to their own imagination, but Sri Sankaracharya never endorsed such a view. It think it is wise that you appear to be backing down from that view, because it leads to ludicrous conclusions. If Krishna is a made-up form whose worship Sankaracharya endorsed, then it follows that one can make up any form and worship that. Then you would have to counter that by saying that some illusory forms are somehow more real than others, which would stretch the limits of believability.

The dhoti/South Asian argument is not by Shankara. It is also a different issue as stated earlier and I am dropping it as it does not belong on this thread. Perhaps on a different thread later.

To be clear,

The formless Brahman point comes from Shankara himself.
Forms like Ganesha, etc., are imaginations of yogins is *not* the traditional advaita position. I am not aware of any traditional doctrine that makes this claim.

Thanks

philosoraptor

14 July 2012, 10:55 AM

Arjuna was able to describe what he saw and we are able to picture it as well. A large form with several eyes and some kind of display about the future is still well within our realm of human experience. However, this is not the main purpose of this discussion and I will drop this. Let us agree to disagree that we see different options as logical.

Pranams,

My point here only is that the thousand-armed form described in the Upanishads is not a metaphor, because Arjuna is recorded as having *seen* it, specifically, with divine vision provided by Sri Krishna. Thus, it cannot be both a metaphor and an object of divine vision.

Sruti is consistent only when one resolves these contradictions. Else, it is inconsistent as yourself have admitted. The contradictions are not something to be brushed aside. As many as of 22 sutra bhashyas were possible for one single text of 555 sutras - which makes it clear that these contradictions are huge. I will repeat that this consistence across the entire canon is limited to within a doctrine. If one views Sruti neutrally or taking multiple doctrines into account, it is no longer consistent. I can provide examples such as brahmano hi pratishta aham, the advaitic mahavakyas, etc, which receive very different interpretations from different schools.

Just to be clear, I did not say that the shrutis are inconsistent. I said that they only *appear* to be inconsistent to those without proper knowledge - there is a difference. If the shrutis really contradict each other, then they would hardly be useful as an independent authority of spiritual knowledge.

That there are many different interpretations of certain shrutis merely reflects the difficulty in understanding them. Not all interpretations are correct, and most Vedaantic thinkers don't acknowledge the multiplicity of interpretations as evidence of "different but valid, alternative interpretations."

Even if we accept that shrutis are authored by different people at different times, how does one accept the idea that a given shruti will contradict itself? Within, say, the bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad, there are both bedha and abedha shrutis, and similarly in other upaniShads, there are statements within the same text endorsing Brahman with form and also formless Brahman. It is not logical to suggest that the author/speaker is contradicting himself within the same teaching. It is more likely that the message is consistent and the statements have to be understood bearing this in mind. Thus, they must be interpreted consistently, without denigrating their authority, and in a way that makes it clear to the pupil - not merely saying that they contradict each other and how they can both be true is just inconceivable.

regards,