Is God bound by his/her attribute?

[wundermonk]

Greetings folks:

Let us say God is omnibenevolent.

This is one of God's attributes. Is God BOUND by this attribute? If yes, then this contradicts God's sovereignity rendering God helpless to be anything BUT omnibenevolent.

Therefore, it appears to me that any attribute that is assigned to God will render God's sovereignity invalid.

Thoughts?

[devotee]

Namaste WM,

Let us say God is omnibenevolent.

This is one of God's attributes. Is God BOUND by this attribute? If yes, then this contradicts God's sovereignity rendering God helpless to be anything BUT omnibenevolent.

Therefore, it appears to me that any attribute that is assigned to God will render God's sovereignity invalid.

Which God are you referring to ? One is Saguna Brahman and another is Nirguna Brahman. Sagun Brahman which is the third state of Self is with attributes and acts as the Creator, Sustainer and Destroyer of the two states and things within the two states. Nirguna Brahman is without any attribute and so the name.

OM

[wundermonk]

Good point devotee.

My thoughts are that the only way to resolve this attribute-sovereignity paradox is to make God attributeless.

Nirguna Brahman is not affected by the attribute-sovereignity paradox.

[Maya3]

God does not have any attributes
"he" or "she" is just OM.
We are the ones who need to look at this as if there are attributes.

I guess you could say that the manifestations in the universe are the attributes, for me that is what all the deities symbolizes anyway. But that might just be me.

Maya

[kallol]

"God is omnibenevolent". This points out that there is a different entity than me, who has attributes like us (may be in positive sense).

Is this what you mean to say ?

Even then, it is true. However the time frame might not be specific. However it may not be person specific.

As because the permanence is in the conciousness (nature of God), which is constantly pulling the creation from manifestation to unmanifestaion (as gravity does to pendulam), the collective attributes change to goodness only. Less goodness is only temporary.

So yes God is the base of the omnibenevolence considering larger time frame.

[Kumar_Das]

Asking a question is not tantamount to having an answer and or worse still disqualification. The Atheists are notorious for this.(they say; "if God is the Creator of everything then booyaka Who created God?!" wow big stump, you got me)

"Let us say God is omnibenevolent."

No let us say God is the Creator. I don't like to play along to false premises.

"This is one of God's attributes."

Ok. We don't have a problem here.

"Is God BOUND by this attribute?"

Why do say this? How is God bound by this attribute?

This is like saying being Supreme is a burden.

"If God can do anything, it means that He is unable to do nothing, which means there is something He cannot do and that is being unable to be unable to do something"

It is how you use and associate words and terms.

The fact that God can do anything shows His superiority. It is superior to God being unable to do anything. It is like saying God should not do anything. It is reflective of your personal fancy.

Therefore, it appears to me that any attribute that is assigned to God will render God's sovereignity invalid.

Thoughts?

We can do this to anything about God.

"God is God but God is not not-God, as He is not not-God therefore there is something that God is not"

Why take this as a slander?

the category of "not-God" itself is subservient and relegates itself in an inferior position to "God"

The term "Absolute Supremacy" implies Superiority to an Absolute degree. Just because this very definition does not include other things (which would otherwise delineate from this followed definition) does not mean this term is defective or restrictive.

God being Supreme is not "a hidrance or limitation to His Supremacy".(this just an absurdity, what other more Supreme conception is there than simply the superlative Supreme?)

[Kumar_Das]

My thoughts are that the only way to resolve this attribute-sovereignity paradox is to make God attributeless.

Nirguna Brahman is not affected by the attribute-sovereignity paradox.

Wow concoct something to make someone shut up? Religion isn't about going along with what you currently can. Religion starts with investigation and grows with understanding. You don't create your own solutions. That's called haulting your spiritual progress. Concealing your own eyes.....

[Sanja]

Namasté,

God does not have any attributes
"he" or "she" is just OM.
We are the ones who need to look at this as if there are attributes.

I guess you could say that the manifestations in the universe are the attributes, for me that is what all the deities symbolizes anyway. But that might just be me.

Maya

I think you're right.

But this is the point. We are looking at it from a humans standpoint.
How could you explaine something that's unexplainable?
If something is too big, you must look at one part of it to be able to apprehend in a way that you can handle it.
So attributes are something we can relate to, something we can understand.
But as God is Brahman there are no attitudes oder anything else we can think of.

Maya appears when non-duality splits into what we call relativity.
Every attitude we can think of is one part of the dual concept for there's always the opposite, whether it appears in the same place or not.

So our mind is bound to Maya, therefore our minds can only understand things that are made of duality, something that relatively appears.

Brahman is non-duality for he is the essence of everything. So God IS and every attribute only appears in our minds because of our limited understanding.

That's only my opinion. :-)

Praṇām

[rishabhverma]

According to my understanding, God is not bound by that attribute, but what he does is always good. He can not do bad. He chooses to do good all the time.

[wundermonk]

How is God bound by this attribute?

As I explained before, ANY attribute, say, "X-ness" constrains God to the extent that God can NOT be anything but "X".

Do you disagree? If so, why?