The concept of God or Gods?

[smaranam]

continued...

----~*~*~*~*~------

Now, i am not interested in debating with anyone regarding whether Brahman has form or is formless based on reasoning, intellect, tarka or any other means.

To me it is simple. The Lord is BOTH. He has a form, and numerous other forms, (not the material forms - of matter - ), He has a svabhAv like we do, He is a person too , and the formlessness is also His aspect only.

The Lord is so kind He knows each one's desire more that we know it ourselves.

Some revel in the formlessness of purusha, the stillness, sthir, achala. So He makes that happen from within the heart, antaryAmi that he is.

Some yearn to see His form, serve Him, associate with Him in various ways. and He
keeps giving them intuitive cues, sends them to the right scriptures, Guru, devotees, gives them His association.

All from within the heart. KRshNa always reciprocates as we surrender.


praNam

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,

One thing that strikes me about being a Hindu is that Scripture always strikes me as the summing up of common sense and putting truths down so that people can understand this.

But from what you say above, do you say that scripture supercedes what we may understand and we must rely on scripture as the ultimate authority?

I would be interested in clarification on this.

Pranams.

From a traditional Vedaantic point of view, the Vedas are the authority on all matters beyond sensory perception. We cannot use logical or sensory perception to establish the nature of Brahman, becaues we have no experience of Brahman. We need the Vedas to tell us about that.

We do have experience of the world around us, and we can use logic to help understand the correct meaning of Vedic statements concerning the world around us.

regards,

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,

Forms are not beyond sensory perception. With all due respect, a South Asian human form clad in a silk dhoti is certainly not - regardless of size.

But the form of Brahman is beyond sensory perception. Again, from shAstra:

na tu māṁ śakyase draṣṭum anenaiva sva-cakṣuṣā |
divyaṁ dadāmi te cakṣuḥ paśya me yogam aiśvaram || gItA 11.8 ||

But you cannot see Me with your present eyes. Therefore I give you divine eyes. Behold My mystic opulence! (gItA 11.8)

This establishes that there are indeed suprasensory entities which posess form and attributes, and which cannot be seen unless one has been gifted with the grace or power to see them.

That is a metaphor to illustrate the power of Brahman.

In that case, you have to assume that what Arjuna saw was also a metaphor:

aneka-bāhūdara-vaktra-netraṁ paśyāmi tvāṁ sarvato ’nanta-rūpam |
nāntaṁ na madhyaṁ na punas tavādiṁ paśyāmi viśveśvara viśva-rūpa || gItA 11.16 ||

kirīṭinaṁ gadinaṁ cakriṇaṁ ca tejo-rāśiṁ sarvato dīptimantam |
paśyāmi tvāṁ durnirīkṣyaṁ samantād dīptānalārka-dyutim aprameyam || gItA 11.17 ||

"O Lord of the universe, O universal form, I see in Your body many, many arms, bellies, mouths and eyes, expanded everywhere, without limit. I see in You no end, no middle and no beginning.
Your form is difficult to see because of its glaring effulgence, spreading on all sides, like blazing fire or the immeasurable radiance of the sun. Yet I see this glowing form everywhere, adorned with various crowns, clubs and discs. "

Here is a clear example not just of being told of a form with thousands of arms, heads, feet, eyes, etc but of testimony by a devotee gifted with such vision that he is seeing precisely that (which is also described in the Upanishads). Looking at it objectively, it is hard to conclude that said vision is intended to be seen by the reader as metaphor.

Moreover, the view that the infinite-armed form is a metaphor for the power of a brahman without attributes is self-contradictory, since it accepts at least one attribute of brahman - namely, power.

That is interpretation. Like I said earlier, the concept of "clear Shastra" does not mean anything outside one's own tradition.

In my experience, the people who take this position are those who want to rationalize extensive reinterpretation of statements that don't require interpretation.

1. Sruti is not consistent. We can find support for pretty much any position as long as we are willing to dig deep enough and have the genious to interpret, which is how one gives it a consistent appearance.

Orthodox Vedantins would say that shruti is consistent, and that the contradictions are only apparent. There is no sense in placing a premium on a body of knowledge which is admitted to be internally contradictory.

2. In this context, we can find support for both a formless Brahman as well as a Brahman with form. Obviously, there will be interpretation to reconcile the two contradictions. Advaita reconciles it in favor of a formless Brahman while Vaishnava doctrines go the other way - in support of Brahman with form, which they identify with the form of Hari.

The Advaitin method of reconciling the apparent contradictions is simply not convincing. They argue that the statements describing form and attributes refer to an illusory level of perception. This is just a roundabout way of saying that those statements are false, while only the statements indicating no attributes are true. Compared to this, the vishishtaadvaita commentator for example is equally at home with both bedha and abedha shrutis, and does not have to argue that one or the other refers to illusory perception only.

It is all at the Vyavaharika level and so, there is no conflict according to Advaita.

Again, let me just point out that there is nothing in the quoted texts to indicate that, "these statements about form refer to a vyavhArika level of perception only." That is an external paradigm imposed by Advaitin commentators to force the Upanishads into line with their views.

That is opinion. Advaitins clearly have a different take on this, which they consider to be sensible.

That's precisely my point. The selective denigration of texts makes sense only to those who want to believe in Advaita, and not to someone starting off with a neutral disposition

I'm curious - how many blue-skinned, four-armed people do you meet during your everyday walks in India? And since I'm assuming (call it a hunch), that you don't meet many such people, can we reject your strawman that Brahman is depicted in the form of a South Asian?

Not clear what this means?

I'm sorry, let me be more clear. Your argument that forms like Narayana and Krishna are created by South Asian people in their own image is a strawman, because Narayana and Krishna do not look like brown-skinned South Asians. As far as your argument that they must be South Asian because they wear dhotis, I would argue that there is nothing inherently unbelievable about an ancestral, spiritual culture in which devas and prajApatis wore dhotis, from which we Indians inherited many of our customs. Getting back to the earlier point, you have argued that Indians created god-images according to their own imagination, but Sri Sankaracharya never endorsed such a view. It think it is wise that you appear to be backing down from that view, because it leads to ludicrous conclusions. If Krishna is a made-up form whose worship Sankaracharya endorsed, then it follows that one can make up any form and worship that. Then you would have to counter that by saying that some illusory forms are somehow more real than others, which would stretch the limits of believability.

The issue that Advaitins believe forms to be temporary was not being contested by me (though I do contest its believability on scriptural grounds). What I do contest is the idea that Advaitins consider Brahman's forms to be the result of some yogi's imagination. That is simply ridiculous, and makes us all out to be worshippers of false images. I cannot imagine an orthodox Advaitin admitting that there is no difference between the worship of Narayana and the worship of a made-up god-image.

regards,

[mradam83]

From a traditional Vedaantic point of view, the Vedas are the authority on all matters beyond sensory perception. We cannot use logical or sensory perception to establish the nature of Brahman, becaues we have no experience of Brahman. We need the Vedas to tell us about that.

We do have experience of the world around us, and we can use logic to help understand the correct meaning of Vedic statements concerning the world around us.

regards,

Namaste,

I (Sort of) get this, so basically is the Vedas seen as something that's beyond human creation and divinely revealed/inspired?

Or in the tradition, are the Vedas supposed to literally come from gods?

Pranams.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Namaste,

I (Sort of) get this, so basically is the Vedas seen as something that's beyond human creation and divinely revealed/inspired?

Or in the tradition, are the Vedas supposed to literally come from gods?

Pranams.

The Veda is considered beginningless and therefore can have no author - which also dismisses the authorship of a God or Gods.

This idea of apaurusheyatva was advanced by kumarila of purva mimamsa when debating Buddhists and was retained by subsequent schools of vedanta like advaita, dvaita, etc. As I recall, Nyaya differs here in accepting divine authorship for the veda, but I need to go back and confirm this.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Namaste,



But the form of Brahman is beyond sensory perception. Again, from shAstra:




This establishes that there are indeed suprasensory entities which posess form and attributes, and which cannot be seen unless one has been gifted with the grace or power to see them.



In that case, you have to assume that what Arjuna saw was also a metaphor:



Here is a clear example not just of being told of a form with thousands of arms, heads, feet, eyes, etc but of testimony by a devotee gifted with such vision that he is seeing precisely that (which is also described in the Upanishads). Looking at it objectively, it is hard to conclude that said vision is intended to be seen by the reader as metaphor.

Arjuna was able to describe what he saw and we are able to picture it as well. A large form with several eyes and some kind of display about the future is still well within our realm of human experience. However, this is not the main purpose of this discussion and I will drop this. Let us agree to disagree that we see different options as logical.

Orthodox Vedantins would say that shruti is consistent, and that the contradictions are only apparent. There is no sense in placing a premium on a body of knowledge which is admitted to be internally contradictory.

Sruti is consistent only when one resolves these contradictions. Else, it is inconsistent as yourself have admitted. The contradictions are not something to be brushed aside. As many as of 22 sutra bhashyas were possible for one single text of 555 sutras - which makes it clear that these contradictions are huge. I will repeat that this consistence across the entire canon is limited to within a doctrine. If one views Sruti neutrally or taking multiple doctrines into account, it is no longer consistent. I can provide examples such as brahmano hi pratishta aham, the advaitic mahavakyas, etc, which receive very different interpretations from different schools.

I'm sorry, let me be more clear. Your argument that forms like Narayana and Krishna are created by South Asian people in their own image is a strawman, because Narayana and Krishna do not look like brown-skinned South Asians. As far as your argument that they must be South Asian because they wear dhotis, I would argue that there is nothing inherently unbelievable about an ancestral, spiritual culture in which devas and prajApatis wore dhotis, from which we Indians inherited many of our customs. Getting back to the earlier point, you have argued that Indians created god-images according to their own imagination, but Sri Sankaracharya never endorsed such a view. It think it is wise that you appear to be backing down from that view, because it leads to ludicrous conclusions. If Krishna is a made-up form whose worship Sankaracharya endorsed, then it follows that one can make up any form and worship that. Then you would have to counter that by saying that some illusory forms are somehow more real than others, which would stretch the limits of believability.

The dhoti/South Asian argument is not by Shankara. It is also a different issue as stated earlier and I am dropping it as it does not belong on this thread. Perhaps on a different thread later.

To be clear,

The formless Brahman point comes from Shankara himself.
Forms like Ganesha, etc., are imaginations of yogins is *not* the traditional advaita position. I am not aware of any traditional doctrine that makes this claim.


Thanks

[philosoraptor]

Arjuna was able to describe what he saw and we are able to picture it as well. A large form with several eyes and some kind of display about the future is still well within our realm of human experience. However, this is not the main purpose of this discussion and I will drop this. Let us agree to disagree that we see different options as logical.

Pranams,

My point here only is that the thousand-armed form described in the Upanishads is not a metaphor, because Arjuna is recorded as having *seen* it, specifically, with divine vision provided by Sri Krishna. Thus, it cannot be both a metaphor and an object of divine vision.

Sruti is consistent only when one resolves these contradictions. Else, it is inconsistent as yourself have admitted. The contradictions are not something to be brushed aside. As many as of 22 sutra bhashyas were possible for one single text of 555 sutras - which makes it clear that these contradictions are huge. I will repeat that this consistence across the entire canon is limited to within a doctrine. If one views Sruti neutrally or taking multiple doctrines into account, it is no longer consistent. I can provide examples such as brahmano hi pratishta aham, the advaitic mahavakyas, etc, which receive very different interpretations from different schools.

Just to be clear, I did not say that the shrutis are inconsistent. I said that they only *appear* to be inconsistent to those without proper knowledge - there is a difference. If the shrutis really contradict each other, then they would hardly be useful as an independent authority of spiritual knowledge.

That there are many different interpretations of certain shrutis merely reflects the difficulty in understanding them. Not all interpretations are correct, and most Vedaantic thinkers don't acknowledge the multiplicity of interpretations as evidence of "different but valid, alternative interpretations."

Even if we accept that shrutis are authored by different people at different times, how does one accept the idea that a given shruti will contradict itself? Within, say, the bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad, there are both bedha and abedha shrutis, and similarly in other upaniShads, there are statements within the same text endorsing Brahman with form and also formless Brahman. It is not logical to suggest that the author/speaker is contradicting himself within the same teaching. It is more likely that the message is consistent and the statements have to be understood bearing this in mind. Thus, they must be interpreted consistently, without denigrating their authority, and in a way that makes it clear to the pupil - not merely saying that they contradict each other and how they can both be true is just inconceivable.

regards,