The idea of "limiting" God

[Kismet]

I would like to just spend a few moments explaining what I think amounts to a fallacy: the idea that by talking about God in certain concrete terms (i.e, that he has a name, "Krsna", that he engages in certain pastimes, has a body, and so on) I must, therefore, limit God in terms of his comprehensive Being.

How do I do that? God still possesses all opulences, has all auspicious and omni-maximal qualities, is infinite, surpasses all understanding, and so forth. The fact that he has certain attributes which are comprehensible is no reason to say God, taken in his entirety, must be limited. And yet this is what I keep hearing (mostly from Catholics, but also Advaitins, some Buddhists who refuse to talk about the "Absolute" in anything but negative terms).

I am not interested in theists who uphold the saguna aspect of God as jumping on the bandwagon here with me. I am interested in a genuine talk of whether or not this counts as a fallacy, as to me it does.

Hare Krsna

[kallol]

I would like to just spend a few moments explaining what I think amounts to a fallacy: the idea that by talking about God in certain concrete terms (i.e, that he has a name, "Krsna", that he engages in certain pastimes, has a body, and so on) I must, therefore, limit God in terms of his comprehensive Being.

How do I do that? God still possesses all opulences, has all auspicious and omni-maximal qualities, is infinite, surpasses all understanding, and so forth. The fact that he has certain attributes which are comprehensible is no reason to say God, taken in his entirety, must be limited. And yet this is what I keep hearing (mostly from Catholics, but also Advaitins, some Buddhists who refuse to talk about the "Absolute" in anything but negative terms).

I am not interested in theists who uphold the saguna aspect of God as jumping on the bandwagon here with me. I am interested in a genuine talk of whether or not this counts as a fallacy, as to me it does.

Hare Krsna

How would you define water in a drop and the same water in the ocean ?

Will the characteristics of water change ? If you have to do a laboratory analysis of the water in the ocean - what would you take - full ocean or few drops ?

If one understands God, then it is plain visible. If not then we get mired into the forms and shapes.

[Kismet]

How would you define water in a drop and the same water in the ocean ?

I would define water in the ocean as consciousness, as pure existence. God is not the drop. God is the ocean. But, God's topmost essence is one of personality: so it is a clear vessel, in the ocean, which partakes of the entirety of the water.

Will the characteristics of water change ? If you have to do a laboratory analysis of the water in the ocean - what would you take - full ocean or few drops ?

The problem is, you are over-simplifying. God does not need to be the ocean only. He can be the ocean, the drops, and the Supreme Person, who is the locus, the center around which this whole ocean revolves.

If one understands God, then it is plain visible. If not then we get mired into the forms and shapes.

One can understand God plainly by focusing one's self on the things of God; his pastimes, form and so on. I say they are complimentary, not exclusive. In this I do not honestly see any contradiction whatever.

[devotee]

I would like to just spend a few moments explaining what I think amounts to a fallacy: the idea that by talking about God in certain concrete terms (i.e, that he has a name, "Krsna", that he engages in certain pastimes, has a body, and so on) I must, therefore, limit God in terms of his comprehensive Being.

How do I do that? God still possesses all opulences, has all auspicious and omni-maximal qualities, is infinite, surpasses all understanding, and so forth. The fact that he has certain attributes which are comprehensible is no reason to say God, taken in his entirety, must be limited. And yet this is what I keep hearing (mostly from Catholics, but also Advaitins, some Buddhists who refuse to talk about the "Absolute" in anything but negative terms).

I am not interested in theists who uphold the saguna aspect of God as jumping on the bandwagon here with me. I am interested in a genuine talk of whether or not this counts as a fallacy, as to me it does.

God cannot be described as He/She/It is. If you describe Him, He does get limited. However, it is important to limit Him artificially so that we can connect to Him & focus on Him. Lord Krishna says it is important because we are limited by our body-mind & therefore worshiping Saguna Brahman is easier ... the Nirguna Brahman cannot be exactly perceived as It is. For connecting to anything with given mental limitations you need something concrete.

Moreover, how does it matter whether you are able to describe Him as He is or not ? A deaf and dumb person cannot describe the taste of sweets ... but he can still enjoy it. UpAsanA of God is important and not what He is like. There is nothing in this universe which is like Him & so we can never perceive what He really is ... but that is not required. Saints who have attained One-ness with God in Nirvikalpa SamAdhi cannot describe the experience ... but describing is not required ... we need to experience it.

BTW, you cannot exactly describe anything in this universe because the reality is that you don't know the exact nature of anything. Your all knowing of anything is only relative & has little value.

OM

[Kismet]

God cannot be described as He/She/It is. If you describe Him, He does get limited.

Interestingly, even if you limit yourself to "it" you do limit God by either objectifying him, or shearing him of his attributes which we can know. So, it is better to say he is all three and surpasses all three. If you want the greatest degree of Being.

However, it is important to limit Him artificially so that we can connect to Him & focus on Him. Lord Krishna says it is important because we are limited by our body-mind & therefore worshiping Saguna Brahman is easier ... the Nirguna Brahman cannot be exactly perceived as It is. For connecting to anything with given mental limitations you need something concrete.

This, for me, is something unacceptable. While in the past I could understand such a point of view, now it seems to me overwhelmingly clear that God must be fully personal, not just artificially so. You do not have to deprive him of his transcendent feature though. This is the point. God can be both perfectly absolute, and yet also personable, a Person... Where is the contradiction? You can say it is contradiction only by limiting him - to only an impersonal Absolute. The onus then falls on you my good friend.

Moreover, how does it matter whether you are able to describe Him as He is or not ? A deaf and dumb person cannot describe the taste of sweets ... but he can still enjoy it. UpAsanA of God is important and not what He is like. There is nothing in this universe which is like Him & so we can never perceive what He really is ... but that is not required. Saints who have attained One-ness with God in Nirvikalpa SamAdhi cannot describe the experience ... but describing is not required ... we need to experience it.

There is importance attached; namely, the glory and honor of the Supreme Being in his personal feature... You may not agree with it, but that is beside the point. If God is as he is, then his personal self cannot be neglected. It is more than our own experience which is at stake in the loving and honoring of God.

BTW, you cannot exactly describe anything in this universe because the reality is that you don't know the exact nature of anything. Your all knowing of anything is only relative & has little value.

OM

And I say, even if that is correct (which I am suspicious of; I think there ARE some things we can know exactly) our relative reality should not be neglected, especially considering if God is a person....

[devotee]

Namaste Kismet,

You say, it is not acceptable to you. Why ? OK. Try thinking of something which is really Infinite. Tell me if you are successful.

OM

[kallol]

Dear Kismet,

It does not matter what is your comfort zone in perceiving God.

Whether you want Him / Her as person, as in limited form and shape or the infinite, these all depend on your mental capability to behold.

Go ahead and enjoy the perception you have - it never matters.

Just because you aske a question - I gave an insight to my perception.

[Kismet]

Namaste Kismet,

You say, it is not acceptable to you. Why ? OK. Try thinking of something which is really Infinite. Tell me if you are successful.

OM

I don't have to be successful. That said, God is not complete in my eyes if his personal Form is neglected.

The reason it is not acceptable to me is because Reality is personal; it has the personal imprint stamped on it, or so I perceive. Hence, God, who is the source of all INCLUDING personality, must too be personal, and have all the accoutrements accompanying Personality: a Form, a Name, etc.

[Kismet]

Dear Kismet,

It does not matter what is your comfort zone in perceiving God.

It doesn't have anything to do with me.

Whether you want Him / Her as person, as in limited form and shape or the infinite, these all depend on your mental capability to behold.

It is not about what I want but what the Truth is. And that Truth, insofar as I can see, is personal.

Go ahead and enjoy the perception you have - it never matters.

That is simply your opinion. Whether I enjoy or dislike the perception, the perception is there, and that is simply the truth as I see it. I respect your view, so you should mine. I feel you are being overly dismissing toward me without grounds.

Just because you aske a question - I gave an insight to my perception.

Yes, that's very good. As long as we can both have respect for each other, that will be enough.

[wundermonk]

Although I have heard of the "limiting" God concept, I do not quite know in full details what it entails...Nonetheless I will reply based on Kismet's OP.

Let me take an example that gets asked of Hindus in various forums.

If Krishna is God, how can he die?

The answer given is usually that only his human form died. If God decides to incarnate in our human world, does he or does he not have to conform to the physical/biological laws of the universe?