Is Brahman a Person?

[Sahasranama]

Is Brahman a Person?

Yes, he is. He lives in Srivalkalam, Kerala.

[philosoraptor]

A lot of this discussion is getting off topic, which is not surprising since so many who are attracted to Hinduism are quite taken with impersonalism. Brahman as described in the shrutis is a conscious being with the capacity to think and act, who has an auspicious form with eyes, faces, arms, legs, etc, and who is capable of showing His grace on the devotee. This is all strictly per shruti and not sectarian interpretation.

Saying that "Brahman is being" may sound flowery and deep, but on closer scrutiny it really fails to tell us anything. It is like saying "sun is heat." Heat is an attribute of the sun, but it does not follow that whatever has heat is therefore sun. Similarly, postulating existence as equivalent to Brahman is not true as per shruti, for the shruti acknowledges other existing entities, both conscious and non-conscious which though pervaded by Brahman, are still distinct from Him.

There is a reason why Brahman is repeatedly described as the "puruSha."

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

Could you kindly explain us the idea behind this methodological transition applied by the Sage śvetāśvatara.

The answer to your question lies in the focus found in each khaṇḍa� - there are 6 of them with the śvetāśvatara upaniṣad.

How about we review each khaṇḍa's area of focus and from there draw our conclusions?

Note that within the 3rd khaṇḍa, the ṛṣi śvetāśvatara calls out no less then two times that he knows this Being ( śloka 3.8 and 3.21 );

and in 4th khaṇḍa he says the following:

ṛco akṣare parame vyoman yasmin devā adhi viśve niṣedhuḥ |
yas tan na veda kim ṛcā kariṣyati ya it tad vidus ta ime samāsate || 4.8
This says, in general,
Of what use is the veda-s to him ( in this case a person/human) who
does not know that highest Being in whom all the devā -s (viśve
devā) reside ? Only those that know That (tad) rest contented.

To the astute reader this is the same śloka that appears in the ṛg (rig)ved (śloka 1.164.39).

These two data points within this upaniṣad i.e. that the seer in fact knows this Being, and of what value is the veda-s to one who does not know this Being, play a key role as I see it into the total value offering of the śvetāśvatara� upaniṣad.

iti śivaṁ

• khaṇḍa is a section; some use the following terms for a 'section':
  • prapāṭhaka - a lecture ; also a chapter or subdivision of a book
  • adhyāya - a chapter, lesson or lecture; also the proper time for readng or a lecture.

[Adhvagat]

A lot of this discussion is getting off topic, which is not surprising since so many who are attracted to Hinduism are quite taken with impersonalism. Brahman as described in the shrutis is a conscious being with the capacity to think and act, who has an auspicious form with eyes, faces, arms, legs, etc, and who is capable of showing His grace on the devotee. This is all strictly per shruti and not sectarian interpretation.

Saying that "Brahman is being" may sound flowery and deep, but on closer scrutiny it really fails to tell us anything. It is like saying "sun is heat." Heat is an attribute of the sun, but it does not follow that whatever has heat is therefore sun. Similarly, postulating existence as equivalent to Brahman is not true as per shruti, for the shruti acknowledges other existing entities, both conscious and non-conscious which though pervaded by Brahman, are still distinct from Him.

There is a reason why Brahman is repeatedly described as the "puruSha."

Of course Brahman is a person (as in being, as conceptualized by yajvan), but also every type of being one can and cannot imagine. And it's manifesting its will everywhere, in every possible way as we type and think right now.

Since our very act of deliberating regarding this is a form of it to manifest, a flow of energy that actually is part of the reality of the whole.

We see God as person because we are experiencing existence as persons right now, so we project. Whenever I think about this, I always repeat that to myself: "Is God a person? Yes, that too."

[realdemigod]

Saying that "Brahman is being" may sound flowery and deep, but on closer scrutiny it really fails to tell us anything. It is like saying "sun is heat." Heat is an attribute of the sun, but it does not follow that whatever has heat is therefore sun. Similarly, postulating existence as equivalent to Brahman is not true as per shruti, for the shruti acknowledges other existing entities, both conscious and non-conscious which though pervaded by Brahman, are still distinct from Him.

There is a reason why Brahman is repeatedly described as the "puruSha."

Isn't everything defined through quality and attributes in this cosmos? Why does it have to be a person? Why can't it be some other animal looking like person but not exactly like person?

[Necromancer]

Namaste.

I am confused. If Brahman is Lord Shiva, then how can Lord Shiva exist as separate from Brahman (assuming that He does)?

As an Vedantin and Shiva Bhakta, the ISKCON people really loved me. I became their pet 'example' of what not to do/follow.

It was here I was firmly grounded in the idea of "Oh, Brahman is too 'impersonal' and has no attributes. That is why we worship Lord Krishna".

I was cool with that...happy in the thought that something 'without attribute' can contain every attribute...just like white light contains all colours of the rainbow.

Do we need to place 'personal attributes' on Brahman at all? If we do, then what am I doing worshiping Lord Shiva?

Aum Namah Shivaya

[realdemigod]

Namaste.

I am confused. If Brahman is Lord Shiva, then how can Lord Shiva exist as separate from Brahman (assuming that He does)?

As an Vedantin and Shiva Bhakta, the ISKCON people really loved me. I became their pet 'example' of what not to do/follow.

It was here I was firmly grounded in the idea of "Oh, Brahman is too 'impersonal' and has no attributes. That is why we worship Lord Krishna".

I was cool with that...happy in the thought that something 'without attribute' can contain every attribute...just like white light contains all colours of the rainbow.

Do we need to place 'personal attributes' on Brahman at all? If we do, then what am I doing worshiping Lord Shiva?

Aum Namah Shivaya

Brahman is with and without qualities/attributes. You can't worship Brahman as undeveloped mind can't comprehend it. That's why we need Gods who are the Brahman with qualities.

[philosoraptor]

Of course Brahman is a person (as in being, as conceptualized by yajvan), but also every type of being one can and cannot imagine. And it's manifesting its will everywhere, in every possible way as we type and think right now.

Since our very act of deliberating regarding this is a form of it to manifest, a flow of energy that actually is part of the reality of the whole.

We see God as person because we are experiencing existence as persons right now, so we project. Whenever I think about this, I always repeat that to myself: "Is God a person? Yes, that too."

Pranams.

God is not a thinking, feeling, personal being simply because we project Him as such. He is a thinking, feeling, personal being because that is what He is, and that is what the shruti says about Him.

Isn't everything defined through quality and attributes in this cosmos? Why does it have to be a person? Why can't it be some other animal looking like person but not exactly like person?

The point is simply that Brahman is a thinking, feeling being who is capable of acting, showing His grace on devotees, granting liberation, etc. This is in contrast to the impersonal view which merely holds Brahman as formless "being," "light," or some other impersonal entity.

Namaste.

I am confused. If Brahman is Lord Shiva, then how can Lord Shiva exist as separate from Brahman (assuming that He does)?

If Lord Shiva is brahman, then what makes you think that Lord Shiva is existing "separate from Brahman?" The question is self-contradictory.

Brahman is with and without qualities/attributes. You can't worship Brahman as undeveloped mind can't comprehend it. That's why we need Gods who are the Brahman with qualities.

A thing cannot be with and without qualities. There is no such thing as an entity without qualities, and the existence of such an entity is not postulated anywhere in the shrutis that I have seen. When He is said to be "nirguNa," this means that He is not tinged by sattva, rAjas, and tamas, which are the modes of material nature. He is said to be beyond tamas (by which it is means, all three of the guNas), and yet having auspicious attributes. And that is the point.

[Necromancer]

If Lord Shiva is brahman, then what makes you think that Lord Shiva is existing "separate from Brahman?" The question is self-contradictory.

Namaste. I realise it is contradictory and that is why I am confused.

There is Lord Shiva as Bholenath....then there is Lord Shiva as Maha Rudra or Mahadeva...which approximates your notion of a 'personal Brahman'.

I just think that if Maha Rudra was the same as Bholenath, Bholenath wouldn't need to exist.

I have always viewed Lord Shiva as a 'person' and Rudra/Brahman as 'imperson' to differentiate between the two.

Maybe, ultimately the form of Bholenath becomes the formless Maha Rudra...but still, the emphasis is on that word, 'formless'.

It's like "yeah, we can do prayers and puja to Lord Shiva...we can see Lord Shiva, either in image/murthi form or in our 'mind's eye'...but how are we 'sposed to worship Brahman?"

We can only do that through intense meditation...we can 'realize' Brahman but we cannot see it because Brahman has no attributes....when we have 'realized' Brahman, we will know if it is 'personal' or 'impersonal'.

Sorry for the contradictions, but the nature of the topic means that cannot be helped nor avoided.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

Namaste.

I am confused. If Brahman is Lord Shiva, then how can Lord Shiva exist as separate from Brahman (assuming that He does)?

How do you come to this conclusion ? Note that the term śiva is rooted in √ śī , ' in whom all things lie'. This is all inclusive, wholeness i.e. pūrṇatā - fullness; based upon pūrṇa which means whole, fulfilled , finished , accomplished , self-indulgent.

iti śivaṁ