Is God bound by his/her attribute?

[Viraja]

Namaste,

This question interests me and I try to find an answer. It is said Sage Bhrigu found out that FIRE in an INHERENT PROPERTY of WATER. Amazing! But it is true that on deep contemplation in the days of the yore, he found the tracks of agnideva deep inside of water. But does this make water the same as fire? No. This same principle about one of the panchabhutas also applies to the lord of the panchabhutas, the god. He is having attributes but is not bound by them.

[smaranam]

praNAm Wundermonk

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?

Yes, I absolutely disagree!
REASON: God is sweet, strong and compassionate. Sweetness does not "constrain God to the extent that He cannot be anything but sweet"
I just told you He is also strong and compassionate!

Not just that, He is both infinitely sweet, infinitely strong and infinitely compassionate all at once, plus He is infinite other things in infinite amounts at once.
So your logic is invalid right there!

---
Brahman a.k.a. ParamAtmA a.k.a. Shri BhagavAn is a repository of all transcendental attributes - that has nothing to do with sattva raja tama - this is what NirguNa means - beyond triguNa , transcendental.
This means all potencies are in Him, the potentiality of all attributes lies in Him. He is omnipotent.

You cannot "make" Brahman attributeless. If Brahman "appears to have" attributes then the potentiality of these has to necessarily exist in Brahman in its highest param state/form.

This is plainly for those who want to learn more about Brahman irrespective of who/which group wants to do what about it : Lie flat, sing, meditate, dance or ignore His awesomeness - do what you want - that is irrelevant here.

Here is a short sample list of His attributes, qualities, potencies, potentialities, in infinite amounts each:
(as abstract nouns in English, as His qualifier in saMskRt)
1. sweetness - mAdhurya
2. compassion - karuNA
3. strength -sarvashaktishAli
4. wisdom
5. cognition - sarvadnya
6. heroism and courage - shUrtA
7. gentleness - dakshiNa
8. happiness - sukhi
9. genius - pratibhAvita
10. all-auspiciousness - sarva shubhaMkar
11. power - pratApi
12. all-attractiveness - sarvAkarshak
13. all-worshippable ness - sarvArAdhya
14. all-oppulence - samruddhimAn
15. ever-freshness - nitya nUtan
16. repository, owner and bestower of all siddhis
17. repository of all & inconceivable potencies - avichintya mahAshakti
18. forgiving nature - kshamAshIla
19. purity - sUchi
20. most truthful - satyavAka

just to list a few - a sample.

Point: Brahman is the source, repository. The forced insistence that attribute or qualifier means within the range of sattva raja tama is not valid here.

e.g. Purity and auspiciousness cannot be a projection or reflection. It has to be an inherent quality in the Highest Brahman as it happens to be.

_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

[smaranam]

|| om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ||

* Those who want to blend, merge, lie flat, stop existing, lie dormant in His effulgence have been given the freedom to do so.
* Those who want to empty out, be the Flute, be the instrument, adore, sing, love, without any aham bhAv have been given the freedom to do so.
* Those who want to turn their back to Him, ignore, deny, have been given the freedom to do so.

It is a choice. Not to be confused with Truth.

Choice made does not change the Absolute Truth, God, Parameshwar.
Just because i want to not exist, i do not drag God down to attributelessness (Yes, we are talkng about the highest Brahman). That would be a sign of not being able to bear anyone or anything being higher than oneself.
Also, just because He is indescribable, i do not say "therefore He is attributeless" this is like sour grapes.

Namaste Wundermonk,

This post is not personally addressed to you. You are merely the instrument that brought this thought here.

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.

This is the most ridiculous illogic i have heard. He is wicked to the wicked, a pleasure to the devoted, crooked to the crooked, although He is benevolent. He says He is the nyAya and the danDa (punishment) of the ones to be punished. He sends the Sudarshan Chakra, and becomes UgrarUpI when needed without stopping being omnibenevolent for a moment. He can be simultaneously both. Because while sending the Sudarshan Chakra on the ShishupAls He is actually being benevolent by giving them mukti in His effulgence.

God has an external potency that creates the world, and that He is dettached from, but you cannot rip apart His internal (antaranga) potency from Him. His antaranga ness, being, cannot be tossed into the same bucket as the jiva-bhUta, creatures - VyavahAr.

Yes, we are talking about BRAHMAN, who is always NIRGUNA, untouched by material modes of nature - sattva raja tama.

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

Sovereignity:
BG 7.7: O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

Source and Repository, inherent attributes:
BG 7.8: O son of Kuntī, I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable oḿ in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man.
BG 7.9: I am the original fragrance of the earth, and I am the heat in fire. I am the life of all that lives, and I am the penances of all ascetics.
BG 7.10: O son of Pṛthā, know that I am the original seed of all existences, the intelligence of the intelligent, and the prowess of all powerful men.

NirguNatva:
BG 7.12: Know that all states of being � be they of goodness, passion or ignorance � are manifested by My energy. I am, in one sense, everything, but I am independent. I am not under the modes of material nature, for they, on the contrary, are within Me.

More Attributes:
BG 10.34: I am all-devouring death, and I am the generating principle of all that is yet to be. Among women(feminine principles) I am fame, fortune, fine speech, memory, intelligence, steadfastness and patience.
BG 10.36: I am also the gambling of cheats, and of the splendid I am the splendor. I am victory, I am adventure, and I am the strength of the strong.
BG 10.38: Among all means of suppressing lawlessness I am punishment, and of those who seek victory I am morality. Of secret things I am silence, and of the wise I am the wisdom.
BG 10.39: Furthermore, O Arjuna, I am the generating seed of all existences. There is no being � moving or nonmoving � that can exist without Me.
BG 10.40: O mighty conqueror of enemies, there is no end to My divine manifestations. What I have spoken to you is but a mere indication of My infinite opulences.

Primordial Source:
BG 10.41: Know that all opulent, beautiful and glorious creations spring from but a spark of My splendor.
BG 10.42: But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe.




He KeshvA!

[Kumar_Das]

Namaste,

This question interests me and I try to find an answer. It is said Sage Bhrigu found out that FIRE in an INHERENT PROPERTY of WATER. Amazing! But it is true that on deep contemplation in the days of the yore, he found the tracks of agnideva deep inside of water. But does this make water the same as fire? No. This same principle about one of the panchabhutas also applies to the lord of the panchabhutas, the god. He is having attributes but is not bound by them.

Note his choice of propogating idolatry.

One of the manifestations of idolatry is to apply laws that determine creation upon the Creator Himself.(restricting the Lord by comparing with limitation/creation)

• The line of reasoning is "if creation is so" > therefore > "also too with the Creator"

Using creation to understand the Creator.


Also note his unusual choice of comparison. Something that as far as science is concerned, is absurd.

Also note when advanced theology is being discussed and when I offer the spiritual explanation/reasoning. No one ever agrees with me. But other multiple, less rational, more blasphemous viewpoints are given.

You can only dupe people who are vulnerable to superstition. Who can't invent lies themselves. But not everybody is so stupid.

[philosoraptor]

Sri Krishna being sweet and compassionate did not bound Him from devastating the armies of the King of Kasi, or helping the Paandavas win the Kurukshetra war through trickery.

[Kumar_Das]

But this is the point. We are looking at it from a humans standpoint.
How could you explaine something that's unexplainable?

Question: Who is God?

Answer: God is the Creator of the universe, He is ultimately the Creator of all things.

Isn't that an "explanation"?

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.

Note the choice of words.

"Too big" ~ physical description

"look at" ~ physical description

But as God is Brahman there are no attitudes oder anything else we can think of.

We use our minds to connect to God. Thats why we "read scriptures" and scriptures tell us about God. Thats part of worship. Thats just the first step in the whole process.

We are finite being with finite minds. God is Infinite. Which means we can never fully understand God. There is always "more to Him" ~ He is Infinite. "Whatever we know about Him, is only whatever we know" therefore we are to be humble even when we speak about Him.

For me I end this as a part of my prayer.

There are 3 attributes about God which tells us who He is. Creator, Sustainer/Preserver & Destroyer. Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. There are verses in the Gita that also says the same; wherein God is told to be "the beginning, middle and end..."



Islam also seems to be in agreement.

Abu Hurairah reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: There are ninety-nine names of Allah; he who commits them to memory would get into Paradise. Verily, Allah is Odd (He is one, and it is an odd number) and He loves odd numbers. And in the narration of Ibn 'Umar (the words are): "He who enumerated them."

�Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj Nishapuri, Sahih Muslim

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.

God has no opposites. To say so would be idolatry.

The Vedas are clear about this.

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

I don't think people understand even what she's saying. It just seems over all complex and "seems to be illuminating".

The moral of the story is: what is seemingly lustrous on the outside may not be a thing of substance as it seemingly is.

Thats the real "Maya" you are to understand here folks.

[Kumar_Das]

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?

• who determines "what" God is and isn't?
• is it a matter of "what" God "can be"?

How is God "being the way that He is" a constraint in anyway?

All the attributes of God are that of Infinite Supremacy.

What does the word "constraint" mean?

Helplessness to the way something is. A limitation.

That's essentially saying(what you said) "God is stuck to being Himself"

God is Ever-Lasting. God is Eternal. God never is subject to change. He is Eternally-Same.

These nescient and positive attributes of His all just to me are telling of His Supremacy. Everything we can speak of Him spells of His Supermacy. Thats how Great a Being He is.

"There is none to compare with Him. There is no parallel to Him, whose Glory, verily, is Great." ~ Yajur Veda 32:3

Things can either be one thing or something else. "A" in my mind is just "A". B in my mind is just B. "Any" "thing" is something.

Infact the reality that something can change in someway. Is infact inferiority. Because its subjected to being shaped/changed by things and forces external to it. Of course we prefer to do this in a positive way. We call that "improvement".

The answer to question was already given in the post.

Any "thing" we can ever understand is made up of attributes. No attribute, no thing by which we can distinguish it from others. We identify the thing by that attribute. If it possesses an attribute, that attribute becomes one of the rest that define its characteristics as a whole.

Red apples are red. The red apple has redness. But redness isn't all there is to a red apple. But redness is one of the things that seperate red apples from oranges and other apples(such as green apples). Is redness a constrait.

Something simply is what it is, a thing about something simply is a thing about that something. Just because it is so, is it a constraint?

Well for created things we can say yes.

• all traits of (individual entities within creation)objects are vulnerable in someway
• these traits are never eternal
• different objects share similar traits

How is God being who He is a constraint? A constraint to what? Himself?

Constraint itself is relative.(created realm)

The concept of "constraint" applies only to us. Creation.

Thanks to the Creator(how He created us). Even Him creating us is dominating us(being we are as we are), even us being a creation shows His dominance/supremacy over us(being we are as we are).

[Kumar_Das]

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?

"Any" "thing" is but "one" thing of "Everything"(all that we can ever know and conceive of)

Yet "Everything" is [God & creation / Creator & creation]

Creator is the one who created all the rest(creation).

Constraintment is relative. There is the "else" that is involved when dealing with "constrainment".

Is God constrained to Himself? I just answered that on the above.

Anymore questions are well... deviations hereupon.

I hate myself. Wish I was a Raja Manickam s/o of Kuppusamy, docile servant worker in his SAF branch scared that his officer Chong Chong Fang will punish him tomorrow paralyzed in his little creepy sambar steam stained walled room.

[Kumar_Das]

"X-ness" constrains God

in otherwords

Creatorhood constrains Creator.

I don't want to play your Semitic Semantic Sand games.

When you play the wolf in sheep's clothing. I'll only stand up as a well-versed preacher clad in fluttery robes schooling you down and making you sit down back on your chair.

Semites cancel each other out.

Heresy is not my thing. It usually makes me feel very sick.

[yajvan]

Namaste

Question: Who is God?

Answer: God is the Creator of the universe, He is ultimately the Creator of all things.

Isn't that an "explanation"?

I'd like to offer this... If we say the supreme is the creator of the universe we are saying what the supreme does not who he is. If i say yajvan writes, he is a writer, I am mentioning the action of yajvan , not who he is.
Now, one needs to be aware that my offer hre is not to aggrivate the situation, but to offer that the supreme cannot be cornered into any one description.
Sure there is no doubt the supreme is all good, most kind, most full, yet words cause differention to occur. This causes containment, some level of being contained, and that is not possible with the supreme.

Iti sivam