Is Brahman a Person?

[Adhvagat]

From what I can gather, you are asking if the infinite being who has all the attributes of an infinite, all-knowing, all-pervading, all-powerful entity have personality, person-hood, person-ness, etc. The answer is yes, as per the shruti. He can have form and personality and that is every bit as much of His nature as His omniscience, etc.

I really don't get why God needs to be a person so badly. I mean, being a person is something incredibly limited. The phenomenal world manifests constructs of consciousness much more well developed and more complex than person-systems.

So why God not being a person is usually seen as something not desirable, specially in religious areas?

An infinite, all-knowing, all-pervading, all-powerful entity cannot be a person. That doesn't make sense. Because if a person is here, he's already not there. If a person is fat, he cannot be thin, and so on.

And I'd say that's why Hinduism does not have one unique God, because universal potentiality cannot be represented by only one thing.

[shiv.somashekhar]

I really don't get why God needs to be a person so badly. I mean, being a person is something incredibly limited....
An infinite, all-knowing, all-pervading, all-powerful entity cannot be a person. That doesn't make sense. Because if a person is here, he's already not there. If a person is fat, he cannot be thin, and so on.

I have made this argument in the past. Why does the omnipotent God require eyes to see (does he have eye lids, can he not see when they are closed, etc.). By giving this God a human figure, we are also imposing human limitations on this God. It is a logical contradiction to say he looks human, but he is not (he has eyes, but he has no use for them!).

However, Philosoraptor, who has been the main force behind the anthropomorphic position on this forum is not basing his case on logic, but on his specific interpretation of the Shruti - which is the same as that of Vaishnava systems such as Ramanuja's and Madhva's.

[jignyAsu]

An infinite, all-knowing, all-pervading, all-powerful entity cannot be a person. That doesn't make sense. Because if a person is here, he's already not there. If a person is fat, he cannot be thin, and so on.

Not necessarily. I believe that even yogis can be present in more than one place. Definetely the gods like Indra etc are present in more than 1 yagna at a time, receiving their respective offerings.

In Bhagavatam we see that the Sage Narad meets 16108 Krishnas playing completely different roles with His respective families. Even though Krishna appears in His beautiful form, the Bhagavatam does not mention Him as being limited.

To use a "cannot" with Brahman denies Him of His infinite capabilities. All the gods recieve their capabilities from this Brahman.

[ShivaFan]

Not necessarily. I believe that even yogis can be present in more than one place. Definetely the gods like Indra etc are present in more than 1 yagna at a time, receiving their respective offerings.

In Bhagavatam we see that the Sage Narad meets 16108 Krishnas playing completely different roles with His respective families. Even though Krishna appears in His beautiful form, the Bhagavatam does not mention Him as being limited.

To use a "cannot" with Brahman denies Him of His infinite capabilities. All the gods recieve their capabilities from this Brahman.

Namaste JignyAsu

I will follow the rule to not go off subject, but you mention an important point which I am also taught.

I absolutely believe the Divine can be in two places at once as I have been taught. And yes, saints have proven this time and again.

Of course Shiva can be on Kailash and also in Varanasi and also in a devotees heart, and also with Mother Ganga on Bhumi Earth - two places, and many places at the exact same moment.

Even the laws of nature - and we know Siva is the Lord of Animals, and I am taught the Law of Nature also - state it is so. Quantum Physics also says particles can be in two places at once as I was taught in school, and today experiments have proven this.

Actually, whenever for some reason I have to talk about Hinduism to someone else or others, I often say this ("God can be in two places at once"). It is foundational to my Hindu experience. Thanks for reminding us of this!

Om Namah Sivaya

[Omkara]

Whether Brahman has a form or not is irrelevant to the question of whether He is a person. It is possible to conceive of a formless being who can think/act. The form/formlessness issue can be discussed in another thread if necessary.

Pietro, the advaitic Brahman can neither think, feel nor act. It cannot even experience bliss, as admitted by Shankaracharya in his Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya. And you think the non- Advaitins are limiting Brahman?

Brahman being a person means that He can think/act/feel/experience. Whether He is formless or not is a related but tangential issue.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Whether Brahman has a form or not is irrelevant to the question of whether He is a person. It is possible to conceive of a formless being who can think/act. The form/formlessness issue can be discussed in another thread if necessary.

Pietro, the advaitic Brahman can neither think, feel nor act. It cannot even experience bliss, as admitted by Shankaracharya in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya. And you think the non- Advaitins are limiting Brahman?

Brahman being a person means that He can think/act/feel/experience. Whether He is formless or not is a related but tangential issue.

I do not see the difference between attributing Brahman with a human form vs. human emotions and behavior. They are the same to me.

Humans are subject to feelings. To attribute Brahman with our feelings such as anger, despair, depression, joy, etc. is limiting this Brahman - basically reducing him to our levels. Think of Jehovah who raises floods out of anger or burns down cities - no better than a tyrant ruler or a mafioso godfather.The Advaita Brahman is above these limitations - one may well argue.

[jignyAsu]

Humans are subject to feelings. To attribute Brahman with our feelings such as anger, despair, depression, joy, etc. is limiting this Brahman - basically reducing him to our levels.

In that case a wall would be perfect because it is devoid of all feelings. However there is a difference b/w us and Brahman. We are subject to feelings born out of our Karma that is forced upon us.

However Brahman's emotion is not born out of karma but out of choice. If He feels compassion on the suffering souls and hence feels sad, I don't think that it is a limitation.

[shiv.somashekhar]

In that case a wall would be perfect because it is devoid of all feelings. However there is a difference b/w us and Brahman. We are subject to feelings born out of our Karma that is forced upon us.

However Brahman's emotion is not born out of karma but out of choice. If He feels compassion on the suffering souls and hence feels sad, I don't think that it is a limitation.

Isn't sadness a limitation?
Isn't the inability to feed sad about the starving child in the Congo, while not being able to do anything about it a limitation?
What about anger? Isn't that a limitation or are we saying Brahman only has some of our feelings and not all? That may be construed as a limitation as well.

We can go on. This is why a perfect Brahman has to be attributeless as in not having any attribute we can know or comprehend.

[jignyAsu]

This is why a perfect Brahman has to be attributeless as in not having any attribute we can know or comprehend.

This is interesting. Which system of philosophy proposes a God that has attributes that we can never know or comprehend? How do we know He possess such attributes even?

[Adhvagat]

Whether Brahman has a form or not is irrelevant to the question of whether He is a person. It is possible to conceive of a formless being who can think/act. The form/formlessness issue can be discussed in another thread if necessary.

Pietro, the advaitic Brahman can neither think, feel nor act. It cannot even experience bliss, as admitted by Shankaracharya in his Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Bhashya. And you think the non- Advaitins are limiting Brahman?

Brahman being a person means that He can think/act/feel/experience. Whether He is formless or not is a related but tangential issue.

Saying that pure space (akasha as a representative of nirguna brahman) is more important than (particular or wave) matter is a judgement based on personal values that has no basis in the experiential reality.

And saying that having qualities and a substantial existence is better than pure space is also based on personal prefereces.

What we perceive in the universe is that existence and non-existence play with each other. They complement each other, like Shiva and Shakti.

This universe was once a pure indiscriminate sea of potentiality, not only the great Nasadiya Sukta states this, but also modern scientists with their theories regarding the beginning and the end of the phenomenal world. Unity manifests multiplicity that then flows to unity again.

That's why I try to guide myself by experience and what really resonates inside me instead of choosing a pet school of thought. Because schools tend to crystallize themselves in extremes. Perhaps the answer is: every extreme flows to another. That's the greek concept of enantiodromia and that's what the orientals expressed in the image of the taijitu.

And while Hindus surely possess interesting philosophical visions, I miss some middle ground that unites them all.