Why is that? Even a small gemstone may contain opposing attributes (color, colorlessness, opposing colors, etc.). So why can't all such contradictions and attributes be present in the Godhead? Isn't it because our finite minds can't handle them (though they often "contain" them anywayOriginally Posted by atanu
)?
aum Sri GaNeSAya namah.
Pranam Atanu ji
What attribution can we assign to that Godhead? he has no limit thus attribute less.
sri-bhagavan uvaca
hanta te kathayisyami
divya hy atma-vibhutayah
pradhanyatah kuru-srestha
nasty anto vistarasya me
The Supreme Lord said: O Arjuna, now I shall explain to you My prominent divine manifestations, because My manifestations are endless. (10.19)
off course from Gyani's perspective he see Bhakti as a stepping stone, not so with a bhakta, would not entertain such a thought, not because he has not read the shastra but because he sees nothing beyond the love off his Ista deva.
Jai Shree Krishna
Rig Veda list only 33 devas, they are all propitiated, worthy off our worship, all other names of gods are derivative from this 33 originals,
Bhagvat Gita; Shree Krishna says Chapter 3.11 devan bhavayatanena te deva bhavayantu vah parasparam bhavayantah sreyah param avapsyatha Chapter 17.4 yajante sattvika devan yaksa-raksamsi rajasah pretan bhuta-ganams canye yajante tamasa janah
The world disappears in him. He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.
etad vai tat
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~~
namasté ganeshprasad,
What you say makes sense, yet is not 'having no limits' an attribute, and being attribute-less well, also an attribute?
When we use the term bhagavān even His name gives us a hint of some of those attributes, no?
bhaga + vān : bhaga - ' dispenser', gracious lord; good fortune , happiness , welfare , prosperity + van is master
The Lord and Master, dispenser of happiness, welfare and prosperity.
He is said to possess 6 divine qualities that cannot be surpassed , no?
Perhaps I am only looking at saguṇa brahman and miss your point on the collective view of Godhead.
- jñāna - knowledge to its fullest - past, present, future in any direction or dimension
- bala - ultimate strengh that can make creation come and go
- aiśvarta - lordship over all of sovereignty & supremacy
- śakti - unending energy
- tejas - splendor and brilliance
- vīrya - vigour , virility
praṇām
यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
because you are identical with śiva
_
Member
Namaste RasaWhy is that? Even a small gemstone may contain opposing attributes (color, colorlessness, opposing colors, etc.). So why can't all such contradictions and attributes be present in the Godhead? Isn't it because our finite minds can't handle them (though they often "contain" them anyway
I agree to your view to some extent that the attributes of the Turya is achintya - unthinkable, ungraspable, beyond mind, beyond words etc.
But scripture does describe the Brahman as nirgunam.
Now coming to the opposite view of assumption of saguna as the primary truth, we land into some difficulties. If the Godhead is taken as delineatable as different from us and having a form and we say that God is tall, then how that same delineated God is going to be short? If Vishnu is hot somewhere and cold somewhere, then the all pervading sameness is broken. Beneath these diverse attributes that is seen as the Universe, Vishnu is all pervading as Vishnu and not as Hot or Cold. I have cited only two problems but there are innumerable other.
Upanishads and Gita emphatically declare the Param Brahman as achintya but nirgunam. The problem arises because some devotees are taught that the Saguna Bhagwan is higher than Brahman. This is wrong. The Saguna Bhagwan is indeed stated to be higher than the Mahat BrahmA (creator) and not Param Brahman, which is beyond definition.
Om Namah Shivaya
Note: Anyway, I go by what Kanchi Seer teaches that I have found true to the Upanishads. The views may differ and each should only follow one's Guru.
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
I think we run into a few problems when we try to discuss this issue. For one, titles such as bhagavan, while of course fitting, tend to have an anthropomorphizing effect. Also, while 'attributeless' could technically be called an 'attribute', so could 'indescribable'--but of course the point of using such terms is not to provide an attribute or description but to say that the object of those terms is beyond anything we can say. Which really shows that the root problem is the language we are using. Our ability to discuss these concepts more fully is limited by the lack of subtlety and grace, and the more or less static tense forms, that are hallmarks of English.
As a student of language, I'm sure you appreciate this Yajvan, and I'd be interested to hear if Sanskrit allows for more communicative depths along these lines. I have read that some Native American/First Nation languages have complex verb forms that allow for an understanding of an environment in constant flux--does Sanskirt also have that feature? (And I'm not saying that that would allow for better discussions on brahman, merely that it is a trait of those languages.) Or does Sanskrit have other features that might give it advantages in discussing the Ultimate Beyond?
Member
Namaste Andrew
Sorry I am intervening. I saw your post addressed to Yajvanji, and thought to throw in my view in advance.
No. Sanskrit verses teach that Mind returns from Him. Words return from Him.
These signify both that the mind and words have origin there and that the words and the mind do not penetrate That.
Om Namah Shivaya
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
No problem Atanu, butt in anytime!Namaste Andrew
Sorry I am intervening. I saw your post addressed to Yajvanji, and thought to throw in my view in advance.
No. Sanskrit verses teach that Mind returns from Him. Words return from Him.
These signify both that the mind and words have origin there and that the words and the mind do not penetrate That.
Om Namah Shivaya
You said that, "[W]ords and the mind do not penetrate That." I think you are supporting my point, no? That language, being merely the tool that it is, cannot adequately address that which is indescribable? Or are you saying that Sanskrit is a language of divine origin and therefore able to address the issue?
Member
Namaste AndrewNo problem Atanu, butt in anytime!
You said that, "[W]ords and the mind do not penetrate That." I think you are supporting my point, no? That language, being merely the tool that it is, cannot adequately address that which is indescribable? Or are you saying that Sanskrit is a language of divine origin and therefore able to address the issue?
Ya, come to think of it, I am saying both -- possibly. Brahman-Self-Turya is said to be indescribable but again it is said to be Om as one and AUM as the Seen three worlds. But there is no qualitative tag with OM.
Om Namah Shivaya
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
Fellow human
Sorry for butting in.
It is the mind (part of aparaprakriti) that in conjunction with intellect and the body brings out the attribute definitions. Mind functions in the environment of Bramhan.
The indirect feeling of the bramhan is due to the reflection of the bramhan through the mind.
We never have dealt directly with Bramhan but only inferred that entity indirectly.
In case we take away the mind there is no way we can know bramhan even indirectly leave apart any attribute tagging to it.
That is why it is beyond comprehension, beyond knowledge, etc.
The source which enables us to know cannot be known or comprehended.
If the above is not true then is there any way, we can know or comprehend bramhan directly ?
Love and best wishes
Namaste Atanu,
If God is ultimately "all-pervading sameness", then how can one hope to keep faith in their ishta-dev, for example Shiva, if Shiva's qualities are to vanish into formless, quality-less Brahman? Does Shiva exist at this present time within a physical form? If he has qualities that help one on the path of enlightenment will those qualities too be dissolved?
What happens to those who want to become self-realized once Shiva is dissolved into Brahman? Or is it only the "sameness" within such Gods one is to worship? If that is so, what makes any given deity distinguishable from any other being?
My apologies if six questions are too many, lol.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks