Re: Is Brahman a Person?
Originally Posted by
shiv.somashekhar
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.
As I previously indicated, I quoted exclusively the translations of Advaitist, non-Vaishnava scholars. I have not quoted anything that was not straightforward. There are very straightforward statements that clearly attribute form, cognition, and other attributes to Brahman, and it requires sectarian interpretation to say these mean something other than what they say.
As far as the "need" for eyes, ears, etc when He can clearly perform any function without them, the question does not arise. The point is, shruti says He has these senses and that He has perceptive abilities that go beyond our limited understanding of these functiions. Therefore He has them. Shruti is the authority and there is no need to claim it means something other than what it says, merely to satisfy our limited conceptions of what a "perfect" Brahman must be. "Perfection" itself is an attribute, or rather, is a concept suggesting fullness of attributes.
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
Bookmarks