The concept of God or Gods?

[mradam83]

Brahman has no name, except of course for names like "Brahman" and "God."

Brahman has no form, yet it contains everything.

Highly evolved Yogis have "given" us personal forms to worship Brahman. So, according to this, Hindus worship fictional images.

And the best part of this is that, by worshipping an unreal image, one will supposedly realize the formless Brahman, (which we only call Brahman for convenience, it really having no name).

Let me just say this: The above beliefs, though inconsistent and rather unflattering towards Hindus, are quite popular in modern Hindu circles. But they don't represent what we find in the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-gita. Not even close.

Namaste,

You see I sometimes do worry in case I fall into the category that a lot of western new age devotees do and treat being a Hindu like some sort of hippy fad.

I think it would do Hinduism a great disservice if more people adopted it and did it in the wrong way.

How do I steer away from that happening?

Pranams.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Brahman has no form, yet it contains everything.

If Brahman has a form, then it cannot contain everything. For the form to mean anything, there has to be an entity external to this form to be able to recognize it.

In this context, what does it matter if Brahman has a form or not? I would like to hear the benefit of a form.

Let me just say this: The above beliefs, though inconsistent and rather unflattering towards Hindus, are quite popular in modern Hindu circles. But they don't represent what we find in the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-gita. Not even close.

Why is it unflattering? This view is not modern and has been around at least since the 8th century CE.

Just to be clear, it appears you are trying to prove Advaita is incorrect (and perhaps also prove the correctness of a different Vedanta doctrine) - without actually saying so. Is this correct?

[philosoraptor]

If Brahman has a form, then it cannot contain everything. For the form to mean anything, there has to be an entity external to this form to be able to recognize it.

Disagree 100%. We don't say that the universe is formless. Yet there is nothing (from an empiric standpoint anyway) external to the universe.

In this context, what does it matter if Brahman has a form or not? I would like to hear the benefit of a form.

It only matters if the shAstras have an opinion on the subject, and we want to have the proper knowledge of shAstra so we can get moksha.

Why is it unflattering?

it = the claim that "Highly evolved Yogis have glimpsed these subtle forces at work and have given personal forms to them so that ordinary people may worship them. "

It is unflattering because it is basically saying that we worship fictional images. Although, because they supposedly came from "highly evolved yogis," we are supposed to ascribe greater importance to them than to say, a comic book drawing. But in the end, it is a figment of someone's imagination, which is saying that we knowingly worship imaginary images. No, I don't think that's particularly flattering of the intelligence of the Hindu community.

This view is not modern and has been around at least since the 8th century CE.

Please cite sources from the 8th century which indicate that forms like Krishna, Rama, etc are merely fictional constructs of "highly evolved" yogis.

Just to be clear, it appears you are trying to prove Advaita is incorrect (and perhaps also prove the correctness of a different Vedanta doctrine) - without actually saying so. Is this correct?

That is based on the assumption that the comments in question represent Advaita. I would not insult true Advaitins by equating these comments to their philosophy.

regards,

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,

You see I sometimes do worry in case I fall into the category that a lot of western new age devotees do and treat being a Hindu like some sort of hippy fad.

I think it would do Hinduism a great disservice if more people adopted it and did it in the wrong way.

How do I steer away from that happening?

Pranams.

Pranams,

First, adopt sAttvik habits. Second, demand scriptural evidence for every claim that is made about what Hinduism supposedly teaches or does not teach. This will help you to separate the wheat from the chaff.

regards,

[Believer]

Namaste,

New Age people have redefined Hinduism as what they would like to see it as, not what it really is. It is defined to be in line with their concepts/words/phrases, like 'yogic images', 'unconditional love', 'peaceful, loving and forgiving'. So, in essence, Hinduism is twisted and used as a validation tool for 'their' model of God, universe and good behavior. Throw in the modern day yoga practitioners, who think Hinduism is all (only) about calming yourself through breathing exercises and contortionism, and you get the complete 'fake' picture, which parallels their identity of the Divine.

Pranam.

[philosoraptor]

What is Hinduism really? When we speak of "what does Hindu teach" and "what are Hindus supposed to believe," it seems implicit that we are speaking of Hinduism in this context as "sanAtana-dharma." But what is "sanAtana-dharma?" It cannot simply be whatever people professing to follow it believe, because those beliefs are varied and contradictory. As soon as we ask what "sanAtana-dharma" is and what it teaches, it is implicit that we need some authoritative source of knowledge that should be theoretically acceptable across sectarian boundries to answer the question.

The New-Age, Neo-Hindu types alluded to above give lip service to the Veda, but rarely consult it (or any ancillary scriptures) when it comes to formulating doctrine. What is striking on this and many other Hindu forums is that people will answer philosophy questions simply by saying whatever they like/whatever makes them feel good, without reference to any evidence. In the few cases where they quote from scripture to make a point, they either quote selectively, or they deliberately try to imply that the scriptures are contradictory, thus implying that you should put aside the scripture and simply listen to their imperfect opinions. Often these opinions have an atheistic, agnostic, or impersonalist character. Not surprisingly, they are often friendly towards non-Hindu religions, rationalize individual choice (as opposed to fidelity to scriptural rules), and adopt other world-views borrowed liberally from secular humanism.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Disagree 100%. We don't say that the universe is formless. Yet there is nothing (from an empiric standpoint anyway) external to the universe.

That is not a relevant example because the universe is not considered infinite. There are also multiverse theories which propose the existence of multiple universes - none of which apply to Brahman. In the case of Brahman, accepting its infinite, boundless nature and at the same time claiming a form is a contradiction.

It only matters if the shAstras have an opinion on the subject, and we want to have the proper knowledge of shAstra so we can get moksha.

Can you produce scriptural evidence that accepting a specific form for Brahman is a prerequisite for Moksha? A quote (or quotes) that also specify what form this may be (along with size) will help.

Please cite sources from the 8th century which indicate that forms like Krishna, Rama, etc are merely fictional constructs of "highly evolved" yogis.

The opening statement from Shankara's (8th Century CE) Brahma sutra Bhashya says Jagat Mithya and Jiva = Brahman. Obviously, forms like Rama and Krishna cannot persist after Moksha. Forms of Brahman only exist at the Vyavaharika level, which is pre-moksha.

That is based on the assumption that the comments in question represent Advaita. I would not insult true Advaitins by equating these comments to their philosophy.

Can you quote the true position of Advaita on the eternal or temporal nature of the form of Rama?

Also, returning to the earlier point, are Rama and Krishna both valid forms of Brahman at the same time? How is that possible? I would view multiple,valid, simultaneous forms as formless too - formless as in absence of one definite form.

Thanks

[philosoraptor]

That is not a relevant example because the universe is not considered infinite.

Pranams,

Your contention was that something that contains everything must necessarily be formless. The universe contains everything within sensory perception but is not formless. Now you are taking the position that this doesn't count, since the universe is not infinite. Given the scarcity of other infinite entities to disprove your example, I think you can surely appreciate the highly arbitrary nature of your logic.

Moreover, you haven't given a logical reason why an infinite entity containing everything must be by the very fact, formless. Your assertion that it must be formless because nothing exists outside it to perceive the form is not rational. This would be like saying that if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, then no sound is made.

In the case of Brahman, accepting its infinite, boundless nature and at the same time claiming a form is a contradiction.

This conclusion is the predictable result of applying our limited experience of form to the infinite. If what we see as having form is limited, it is not logical to assume that anything with form is by its very nature limited. The shrutis speak of a Brahman which has form and is yet unlimited. An infinite entity that has everything, and yet has no form, is a contradiction.

Accepting that Brahman is formless and yet contains everything is also a contradiction. We have no experience of a formless thing containing other things. If it is argued that analogies based on empirically-perceivable entities cannot be applied to the infinite, as I did with you, then my reply is - fine, let's forget these analogies and deal with what the shAstra-s say.

Can you produce scriptural evidence that accepting a specific form for Brahman is a prerequisite for Moksha? A quote (or quotes) that also specify what form this may be (along with size) will help.

Your specific question earlier was, "In this context, what does it matter if Brahman has a form or not? I would like to hear the benefit of a form." To which, my response was that, "It only matters if the shAstras have an opinion on the subject, and we want to have the proper knowledge of shAstra so we can get moksha." It is implicit in Vedaantic discourse that right knowledge from shAstra leads to moksha. Wrong knowledge does not. This is why it matters - because the shAstras do have an opinion on the subject. To acknowledge that it has an opinion and then say that it does not matter is a nAstika position. I assume for the purposes of this discussion that we at least theoretically accept the position of the Veda. If not, then this discussion isn't going to go very far.

You also ask what the benefit of worshipping Brahman as a being with form is. A similar question is asked by Arjuna in gItA 12.1 when he asks about those who worship Sri Krishna Himself vs those who worship "akShara." Sri Krishna replies (gItA 12.5) that both paths leads to Him, but the path of those who meditate on "avyakta" is more troublesome/difficult: kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām avyaktāsakta-cetasām / avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaḿ dehavadbhir avāpyate //. That is His opinion on the subject.

You also ask if there is shAstric evidence recommending worship of God in His form. This is a slight change in course, but yes, there is. Naarada instructs Dhruva that worshipping the form of the Lord frees one from material influence and keeps him from falling down (bhAgavata purANa 4.8.52):
evaḿ bhagavato rūpaḿ subhadraḿ dhyāyato manaḥ |
nirvṛtyā parayā tūrṇaḿ sampannaḿ na nivartate ||

Of note, Dhruva took Naarada's advice to heart and got the direct vision of Vishnu Himself.

In the Vishnu Puraana, it is also explained that while no one knows Him in truth, the devas adore Vishnu in the forms which He assumes:

bhavato yat paraM tattvaM tanna jAnAti kashchana |
avatAreShu yadrUpaM tadarchchanti divaukasaH || VP 1.4.17 ||

Now, since you brought up the subject, do you mind if I ask you where in shAstra we see prescribed worship of an entity that is explicitly deemed to be formless? I can think of a handful of references myself, but I can think of many more references that describe Brahman as having form, attributes, and sentience.

The opening statement from Shankara's (8th Century CE) Brahma sutra Bhashya says Jagat Mithya and Jiva = Brahman. Obviously, forms like Rama and Krishna cannot persist after Moksha. Forms of Brahman only exist at the Vyavaharika level, which is pre-moksha.

But where is it explicitly stated that forms like Raama and Krishna are fictional constructs invented by yogis? That was the specific claim of the poster to whom I responded. Merely saying that world is false and/or ceases to exist after moksha does not answer this question. It's also not consistent, but that's another issue. The fact that Shankaraachaarya would prescribe worship of Govinda specifically is not consistent with the idea that he considered Govinda to be the fictional outpouring of some yogi's imagination. If it is argued that all entities in the pre-moksha stage are unreal, then prescribing worship of one over another is highly arbitrary, especially if they are all, as the poster claimed, forms invented by some yogi with no truth in reality.

Can you quote the true position of Advaita on the eternal or temporal nature of the form of Rama?

Advaitins can do this if they wish. My response was to the poster who is obviously following a Neo-Advaitic line of thinking.

Also, returning to the earlier point, are Rama and Krishna both valid forms of Brahman at the same time? How is that possible?

Why not? Why can't an all-powerful being exist in multiple places at the same time? He has done it according to our scriptures. The Bhaagavata describes how He was seen by Naarada in many different places attending to different functions of the state, interacting with different wives, etc. We also have the story of the rAsa-lIla in which He expanded Himself into different forms to dance with each of the gopIs.

The conclusion is that God is quite capable of outdoing our limited assumptions of what an unlimited God can and cannot do.

I would view multiple,valid, simultaneous forms as formless too - formless as in absence of one definite form.

So in essence, you see the multiple forms coming from a single entity as evidence that that single entity has no form. According to you, the manifested entities contain attributes that are not present in their source. This would be like saying that the sun must not be hot because it emits so many sun-rays which contain heat.

Note that I am merely attacking this position on logical grounds because you have chosen to assert its correctness based on (faulty) logic. Of course, we could just go back to what the shruti says instead.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Your contention was that something that contains everything must necessarily be formless. The universe contains everything within sensory perception but is not formless. Now you are taking the position that this doesn't count, since the universe is not infinite. Given the scarcity of other infinite entities to disprove your example, I think you can surely appreciate the highly arbitrary nature of your logic.

The logic is as simple as can be. Something that is boundless and infinite cannot have shape and size. Surely, you are not contesting this? And I am sure you agree that the universe is not seen as boundless/infinite when one is attempting to identify its shape.

We have enough abeda Sruti where it is laid out in explicit terms that Brahman is without form. Now one needs to be reconcile this with the Brahman who may have a form. In my neutral opinion, this round goes to Advaita. Advaita has a very believable approach in putting forms into perspective by the Vyavaharika-Paramartika difference. Other Vedanta schools have failed to provide a convincing rationale for the formless, Nirguna Brahman, because there is no place for such a formless Brahman in their doctrines.

Setting aside scripture for a moment, there is the unanswered question of the relevance of assigning a form to Brahman, which fails basic logic tests. Why would this infinite Brahman have a human form - coincidentally one of South Asian race? We look the way we do for specific reasons - none of which apply to Brahman. We have eyes as sense organs to be able to see. This does not apply to Brahman as he would not need eyes to see. It is far more believable that these forms were created by us because it easier to connect on a personal level with a God who has a human, recognizable form than say, an invisble abstraction or a God shaped liked a cube or an odd shaped block of wood. Obviously then, Gods are created to mirror local traditions as in dark skin, curds rice, ear-rings, silk-dhotis, etc. Krishna naturally would become the most popular, owing to the attractive hero image.

Between Shastra and logic, the latter has to take precedence or else the entire system becomes meaningless.

Accepting that Brahman is formless and yet contains everything is also a contradiction. We have no experience of a formless thing containing other things.

That is correct. We have three choices -
1. Brahman is formless and contains everything
2. Brahman has a form (human-like) and contains everything inside this human form
3. Neither of the above are true.

Sorting these three positions in the order of believability in descending order, I sort them as 3,1,2. 3 appears on top of my ranking because there is no way anyone can know if 1 or 2 is true and if someone does know, we have no way of knowing this person knows for real.

You also ask if there is shAstric evidence recommending worship of God in His form.

I did not ask that. As I explained aboved, it is common knowledge that various forms are associated with Brahman to make worship and personal connections easier.

The fact that Shankaraachaarya would prescribe worship of Govinda specifically is not consistent with the idea that he considered Govinda to be the fictional outpouring of some yogi's imagination. If it is argued that all entities in the pre-moksha stage are unreal, then prescribing worship of one over another is highly arbitrary, especially if they are all, as the poster claimed, forms invented by some yogi with no truth in reality.

I am not aware of this poster and I cannot speak for him. Shankara proposed worship of Krishna, Shiva, Sharada et al., and did not rank them in any order. This is standard Advaita 101. People who choose to follow Bhakti can pick any of these forms for worship.

The reason I am here is, according to Advaita, Brahman has no form, which means forms like Krishna are not eternal. Here and elsewhere, you have been trying to show these forms are eternal and that souls are distinct - all of which is debating Advaita without naming it. I am fine with it as I am not out to defend or criticize any doctrine. It just makes it easier for everyone if you make the goal of your postings clear so the right people can jump into the discussion.

Thanks

[wundermonk]

Sorry, I could not go through all the previous posts so apologies if this has been covered before.

If Brahman is the ground of everything else, i.e., if Brahman is the ultimate ontological support, then it cannot have a form. Apart from scriptures, the Nyaya attempts to establish this as follows.

Per Nyaya, all forms are made up of atoms in different combinations. Since Brahman is ontologically prior to atoms (although Brahman, atoms, selves are temporally coeval), Brahman cannot be made up of atoms. So, not being made up of atoms implies that Brahman is formless.