Is Brahman a Person?

[Necromancer]

Namaste, Yajvan.
My previous post in this thread (prior to this one) should explain how and why I reached that conclusion.

Aum Tryambakam Yajamahe, Sughandim Pushti Vardhanam;
Urvarukam Iva Bandhanan, Mrityur Mukshiyam Amritat

Well, that's what I am chanting at the moment...but there's this:

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पुर्णमुदच्यते
पूर्णश्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥
ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥

Om Puurnnam-Adah Puurnnam-Idam Puurnnaat-Purnnam-Udacyate
Puurnnashya Puurnnam-Aadaaya Puurnnam-Eva-Avashissyate ||
Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||

Aum Namah Shivaya

[philosoraptor]

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

Pranams.

Your confusion is based on your attachment to the idea that Brahman is impersonal and without attributes. The whole point of this thread is that Brahman is neither impersonal nor without attributes, as per the shruti. When you understand that Brahman is indeed a personal being with attributes, there should be no objection in theory to identifying Brahman with a specific deity. One only has to see if the attributes of that deity and the attributes of Brahman match perfectly or do not match.

If you believe that Shiva is Brahman, then it follows that Shiva is the one from which everything else emanates, who pervades everything, who is the only granter of liberation, and who has no cause or higher Lord. In this view, Shiva = Brahman. Period.

This is, of course, assuming that you follow Shaivism.

[wundermonk]

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.

This is just your own view.

Are you aware of the nirvikalpa pratyaksha and the role it plays in perception?

[Necromancer]

Pranams.

Your confusion is based on your attachment to the idea that Brahman is impersonal and without attributes. The whole point of this thread is that Brahman is neither impersonal nor without attributes, as per the shruti. When you understand that Brahman is indeed a personal being with attributes, there should be no objection in theory to identifying Brahman with a specific deity. One only has to see if the attributes of that deity and the attributes of Brahman match perfectly or do not match.

If you believe that Shiva is Brahman, then it follows that Shiva is the one from which everything else emanates, who pervades everything, who is the only granter of liberation, and who has no cause or higher Lord. In this view, Shiva = Brahman. Period.

This is, of course, assuming that you follow Shaivism.

Namaste.

Then what is the difference between Savikalpa and Nirvikalpa Samadhi, or is there none anymore?

I need a break from the internet anyway.....nothing good ever comes from being on it.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[realdemigod]

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.

I don't see why a formless being can't think/act/feel. Can you be little more specific on the contrast you are talking about?

[Omkara]

I don't see why a formless being can't think/act/feel. Can you be little more specific on the contrast you are talking about?

A formless being can certainly think/act/feel, but the attributeless advaitic brahman certainly cannot.

[charitra]

If you believe that Shiva is Brahman, then it follows that Shiva is the one from which everything else emanates, who pervades everything, who is the only granter of liberation, and who has no cause or higher Lord. In this view, Shiva = Brahman. Period. This is, of course, assuming that you follow Shaivism.

So therefore the above firm assertion automatically confirms that FORM is a sampradaya centric (bhakta/devotee’s) attribute of Brahman, no?
Say if one substitutes shiva (and shaivism) with Vishnu (vaishnavism), Durga (shaktasm) etc. one may tread the chosen sampradaya to achieve ways to attain moksha.
In other words, by extension, the argument holds that the form is a mandatory first step of reaching one and only nirakara Brahman (The God), no? Or am I over reading the concept? That in order to strictly adopt a certain sampradaya for sadhana (meditation �moksha) purposes a sadhaka will have to accept a murthi (deity), right? That sounds a reasonable basis for murthi worship.
Namaste.

[realdemigod]

A formless being can certainly think/act/feel, but the attributeless advaitic brahman certainly cannot.

Then who gives attributes to this advaitic brahman you are talking about?

[philosoraptor]

This is just your own view.

Are you aware of the nirvikalpa pratyaksha and the role it plays in perception?

Which is just my view? The logical fact that (a) a thing cannot have and not have attributes, (b) the fact that a thing without attributes cannot exist, or (c) that the shrutis do not postulate the existence of an entity without attributes?

[philosoraptor]

Namaste.

Then what is the difference between Savikalpa and Nirvikalpa Samadhi, or is there none anymore?

From what sources are you deriving your knowledge of "savikalpa and nirvikalpa samadhi?" If you are talking about sources other than shruti, then you should question where those sources got their information. Shruti is the authority in Hinduism, and as far as shruti is concerned, Brahman is an entity that has many auspicious attributes.