Are the physical forms of God real?

[Aupmanyav]

If I may trespass here, and consider the original question, when a God manifests to a human they must do so in some way, in some form. Naturally, they will appear in a form which their worshiper will recognise, out of kindness. A Goddess once told a Greek "bodies have been attached to our self-revealed appearances for your sakes."

IMHO, you are very right, David.

effort ? ........what about devotion ? ....

That is only an emotion, Ratiben. Yours may be 'dasya' bhava (master and servant), mine is 'sakha' bhava (friends, like that of 'Uddhava' ji).
(Sage Uddhava was considered to be the wisest of all men of his time and was Lord Krishna's friend).

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

1. Followers of Sri Madhvacharya (Dvaita philosophy) say Vishnu/Krishna is separate from us.
2. Followers of Sri Ramanujacharya (Vishishta Advaita) say Vishnu is the same as you and me but there is a qualified difference.
3. Followers of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (Hare-Krishnas) say Vishnu/Krishna is the same as you and me but the similarity and difference are indescribable (Achintya Bheda Abheda Advaita).

The descriptions you provide are wrong Aup ji.
1. Śrī Madhva (Tattvavāda) : Viṣṇu and Jīvas are distinct*, with the latter being dependent (hence not separate**) on the former even in mokṣa.
2. Śrī Rāmānuja (Viśiṣṭādvaita) Viṣṇu and Jīvas are distinct but there is oneness^ just as there is oneness between ātman (~soul) and śarīra (body), the jīvas (and prakṛti) being body of Viṣṇu. So it wrong, according to VA, to say that Viṣṇu and jīvas are "same (as in identical)" even in mokṣa.
3. Śrī Caitanya - Did not establish a separate school and supposedly accepted Tattvavāda (though there are diverse views); Acintya Bhedābheda was established later by Vidyābhuṣaṇa: Viṣṇu and jīvas are inconceivably distinct yet similar.
All of the above three schools hold that Viṣṇu • never undergoes bondage of samsāra • never comes under the influence of ignorance • never assumes a prākṛta (material/physical) body. Even His avatāras such as Rāma, Kṛṣṇa are sacchidānanda vigrahas.

*Distinct = recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type
**Separate = forming or viewed as a unit apart or by itself. No such claim is made in Tattvavāda
^Oneness here is not the absolute unity / non-dualism and is as in the definition: the fact or state of being unified or whole, though comprised of two or more parts.

Dvaitādvaita probably came later since Śrī Nimbārka's son quotes from Śrī Madhva Bhāṣya. In any other case (i.e., if Śrī Madhva had presented dvaitādvaita) later Ācāryas defending Tattvavāda would've certainly considered and answered this moot point which wouldn't have missed the attention of other pūrvapakṣins.

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।

 

[kalyan]

The descriptions you provide are wrong Aup ji.
1. Śrī Madhva (Tattvavāda) : Viṣṇu and Jīvas are distinct*, with the latter being dependent (hence not separate**) on the former even in mokṣa.
2. Śrī Rāmānuja (Viśiṣṭādvaita) Viṣṇu and Jīvas are distinct but there is oneness^ just as there is oneness between ātman (~soul) and śarīra (body), the jīvas (and prakṛti) being body of Viṣṇu. So it wrong, according to VA, to say that Viṣṇu and jīvas are "same (as in identical)" even in mokṣa.
3. Śrī Caitanya - Did not establish a separate school and supposedly accepted Tattvavāda (though there are diverse views); Acintya Bhedābheda was established later by Vidyābhuṣaṇa: Viṣṇu and jīvas are inconceivably distinct yet similar.
All of the above three schools hold that Viṣṇu • never undergoes bondage of samsāra • never comes under the influence of ignorance • never assumes a prākṛta (material/physical) body. Even His avatāras such as Rāma, Kṛṣṇa are sacchidānanda vigrahas.

*Distinct = recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type
**Separate = forming or viewed as a unit apart or by itself. No such claim is made in Tattvavāda
^Oneness here is not the absolute unity / non-dualism and is as in the definition: the fact or state of being unified or whole, though comprised of two or more parts.

Dvaitādvaita probably came later since Śrī Nimbārka's son quotes from Śrī Madhva Bhāṣya. In any other case (i.e., if Śrī Madhva had presented dvaitādvaita) later Ācāryas defending Tattvavāda would've certainly considered and answered this moot point which wouldn't have missed the attention of other pūrvapakṣins.

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।

Beautiful post...

 

[Aupmanyav]

A like for Tattva even before reading his post which I know will be very scholastic. And thanks, Tattva for correcting me where I was wrong.
Yes, I agree that the avataras of Lord Vsihnu were 'Saccidananda Vigrahas' (Lord Vishnu himself). I do not think any Hindu thinks differently on that.
You did not say anything about Shuddha Advaita of Sri Vallabhacharya.

 

[Terese]

A like for Tattva even before reading his post which I know will be very scholastic. And thanks, Tattva for correcting me where I was wrong.
Yes, I agree that the avataras of Lord Vsihnu were 'Saccidananda Vigrahas' (Lord Vishnu himself). I do not think any Hindu thinks differently on that.
You did not say anything about Shuddha Advaita of Sri Vallabhacharya.

What does 'Saccidananda Vigrahas' mean?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Saccidananda Vigraha: Brahman (or the Supreme Spirit of any belief in Hinduism, Lord Vishnu for Vaishnavas and Lord Shiva for Shaivas. Same for Mother Goddess for Shaktas) is termed as Saccidananda which is a composite word for Sat + Chit + Ananda = Existent + Eternal + Blissful. It exists eternally and incorporates all bliss. Vigraha is form.

ps. - The image in your signature is so comforting. I love it.

 

[LostKiera]

All of the above three schools hold that Viṣṇu • never undergoes bondage of samsāra • never comes under the influence of ignorance • never assumes a prākṛta (material/physical) body. Even His avatāras such as Rāma, Kṛṣṇa are sacchidānanda vigrahas.

By these views then, Krishna and Rama had no physical bodies?

Vishnu is supreme as per supreme authority vedas...the supreme brahman is Vishnu himself no less...you and me and everything in this world is related because Vishnu exists as substratum in absolutely everything!

So would you say that Vishnu has no personality as such as he is Brahman and Brahman is everything? Or is there a difference in personhood between Vishnu and Brahman? For instance, Christian philosophy says God is one substance composed of three persons (Father, Son and Spirit). Would you say Brahman is the substance and Vishnu the person?

@LostKiera, @Terese, so one may ask with all these differences, how does Hinduism keep an even keel?
What helps Hinduism keep an even keel is 'dharma', one' duty, social rules. What should a person do and what he/she should not do. A precise description of that is in Srimad Bhagawat Gita in Chapter 15, verse 1-3:

So Hinduism is more focused on practice than theology?

 

[Terese]

By these views then, Krishna and Rama had no physical bodies?


So would you say that Vishnu has no personality as such as he is Brahman and Brahman is everything? Or is there a difference in personhood between Vishnu and Brahman? For instance, Christian philosophy says God is one substance composed of three persons (Father, Son and Spirit). Would you say Brahman is the substance and Vishnu the person?


So Hinduism is more focused on practice than theology?

As Aup said, saccidananda, It exists eternally and incorporates all bliss. Doesn't have anything with Rama and Krishna not having a physical body. Vishnu is Saguna Brahman, which is Brahman with attributes. Brahman and Narayana (Vishnu) are just different names for the Lord. As for the last question, i am not that knowledgeable of Hinduism. Ask Aup!

 

[LostKiera]

Thanks Terese.

As regards Vishnu being Brahman with attributes, would not these attributes also be part of Brahman if Brahman is everything? How can Vishnu possess something Brahman does not?

 

[Terese]

Thanks Terese.

As regards Vishnu being Brahman with attributes, would not these attributes also be part of Brahman if Brahman is everything? How can Vishnu possess something Brahman does not?

You're being silly! Brahman is Vishnu! Brahman is all! the universe and beyond! Vishnu is Brahman's highest form!

 

[LostKiera]

Sorry for being silly - I just get so confused about all this!

If Vishnu is Brahman, why is Vishnu necessary, why can't Vaishanavas just say they worship Brahman directly? And why worship "everything" anyway as opposed to a positive aspect of everything? For instance, would it not make more sense for a Vaishnava to worship Shiva than Vishnu - since Vishnu is everything, he would contain negative qualities that Shiva would not. He would also have no personality to speak of while Shiva would.

 

[Terese]

Sorry for being silly - I just get so confused about all this!

If Vishnu is Brahman, why is Vishnu necessary, why can't Vaishanavas just say they worship Brahman directly? And why worship "everything" anyway as opposed to a positive aspect of everything? For instance, would it not make more sense for a Vaishnava to worship Shiva than Vishnu - since Vishnu is everything, he would contain negative qualities that Shiva would not. He would also have no personality to speak of while Shiva would.

Narayana is everything, but is not tainted by raja or tamasic gunas. Why would it make sense to worship Siva? For vaishnavas he is a realised soul! Not God himself. Maha Vishnu has no negative qualities. Brahman does have personality: Vishnu!
Brahman is Vishnu in a form, which is easier for people to worship. Why stare at nothing and think of God when a Vishnu murthi is available? We don't worship 'everything' we worship holy divinities. What you find beautiful is seeing God. a plant, a deer, or a loved one, is seeing god. the feeling. Don't be confused. i just read alot of Wikipedia pages on Hinduism before i found this forum. Just ask questions and it'll all smooth out.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

So would you say that Vishnu has no personality as such as he is Brahman and Brahman is everything? Or is there a difference in personhood between Vishnu and Brahman? For instance, Christian philosophy says God is one substance composed of three persons (Father, Son and Spirit). Would you say Brahman is the substance and Vishnu the person?

Interesting question. The answer varies for different schools. Vishnu, according to Advaita is impersonal(and formless), other schools consider Vishnu as a Personal God with a form. Vishnu and Brahman are synonymous, hence both Substance and person are not different. That's why his form is called sac-cid-ananda.

isvarah paramah krsnah / sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah
anadir adir govindah / sarva-karana-karanam

Krishna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body.
He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes. ​

 

[Acintya_Ash]

As regards Vishnu being Brahman with attributes, would not these attributes also be part of Brahman if Brahman is everything? How can Vishnu possess something Brahman does not?

Maya is the unique power (shakti) of Brahman. Maya is trigunatmika; it has three gunas or attributes. But Shuddha Brahman is nirguna and is free from attributes. Shuddha Nirguna Brahman alone is the Supreme Reality. When Nirguna Brahman comes to acquiesce Maya and acknowledges the gunas of maya, it is known as Saguna Brahman. Saguna Brahman is God, the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the world.Saguna Brahman is Ishvara or a ‘personal god.’ Man worships gods in different forms and names.
Brahman manifests itself in the world with the help of Maya. The world and the world objects come into existence due to the power of maya.

http://indianphilosophy.50webs.com/advaita.htm

So, Vishnu/Saguna Brahman's attributes are derived from his Maya.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

If Vishnu is Brahman, why is Vishnu necessary, why can't Vaishanavas just say they worship Brahman directly?

According to Vaishnava schools of thought, Vishnu is Brahman, with form. They don't worship Shiva because Shiva is not considered as Supreme. Lord Shiva is considered as guna avatar of Vishnu/Narayana akin to Lord Brahma, while Narayana is considered as transcendental to prakritic-gunas. They are worshipping Brahman directly.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

He would also have no personality to speak of while Shiva would.

Only Advaita considers Brahman as impersonal, all others schools act a personal God/Brahman.

 

[Aupmanyav]

By these views then, Krishna and Rama had no physical bodies?

They are forms of Brahman. Vaishnavas will say they are forms of Vishnu. Shaivas will say all forms are Shiva only. We say please yourself.

So would you say that Vishnu has no personality as such as he is Brahman and Brahman is everything? Or is there a difference in personhood between Vishnu and Brahman? For instance, Christian philosophy says God is one substance composed of three persons (Father, Son and Spirit). Would you say Brahman is the substance and Vishnu the person?

Vishnu as Brahman is the source of all personalities. Some Hindus do believe that Gods Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are Brahman, only that the gunas (attributes) are different. Sattva makes it Brahma, Rajas makes it Vishnu and Tamas makes it Shiva. Since Vishnu is Brahman (for Vaishnavas), he is the entity (substance has a material connotation and is not the right word to use) which appears as all substance or wishes all substance to exist. There are differences of views as we have discussed earlier on what is Brahman and how does it differs from living beings and non-living substances. These differences are sort of academic, Hindus do not get bogged down by them. Is there a correct God dictated way ('I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me' or 'There is no god but Allah. Nothing at all resembles Him or is equal to Him') to consider these differences? No. People have many beliefs, there are many philosophies and many sects and all of them are valid (within a very wide limit).

So Hinduism is more focused on practice than theology?

The practice is 'dharma' (fulfilling of one's duties and engaging in righteous action), that is absolutely essential. Not following 'dharma' diminishes one's Hinduism. For theology, the table is laid out, beliefs as well as Gods and Goddesses, take your pick according to your inclination. (Please note these are my personal views and there is no single authority in Hinduism to expound it. What the people of various sects say is valid only for their sect)

 

[Aupmanyav]

As regards Vishnu being Brahman with attributes, would not these attributes also be part of Brahman if Brahman is everything? How can Vishnu possess something Brahman does not?

We see them as attributes. But that is the nature of Lord Vishnu/Brahman (for Vaishnavas). He is like that only.

Sorry for being silly - I just get so confused about all this! If Vishnu is Brahman, why is Vishnu necessary, why can't Vaishanavas just say they worship Brahman directly? And why worship "everything" anyway as opposed to a positive aspect of everything? For instance, would it not make more sense for a Vaishnava to worship Shiva than Vishnu - since Vishnu is everything, he would contain negative qualities that Shiva would not. He would also have no personality to speak of while Shiva would.

I sympathize with you. Why was the Jewish God named YHWH? Why the Muslim God is Allah? So, for the Vaishnavas, it is Vishnu, for the Hare-Krishnas it is Krishna. Well, there are those too who worship positive aspect of everything. For Shaivas, Shiva has no negative qualities. For many Vaishnavas too, Shiva has no negative qualities. What Vishnu is for Vaishnavas, Shiva is for Shaivas. Most advaitists worship what has no personality. Some advaitists like me worship none. For if Brahman is the only entity in the universe, then everything is Brahman, even a stone. Me too and you too. So, whom to worship?

 

[ratikala]

nanaskaram tattva ji

1. Śrī Madhva (Tattvavāda) : Viṣṇu and Jīvas are distinct*, with the latter being dependent (hence not separate**) on the former even in mokṣa.
2. Śrī Rāmānuja (Viśiṣṭādvaita) Viṣṇu and Jīvas are distinct but there is oneness^ just as there is oneness between ātman (~soul) and śarīra (body), the jīvas (and prakṛti) being body of Viṣṇu. So it wrong, according to VA, to say that Viṣṇu and jīvas are "same (as in identical)" even in mokṣa

3. Śrī Caitanya - Did not establish a separate school and supposedly accepted Tattvavāda (though there are diverse views); Acintya Bhedābheda was established later by Vidyābhuṣaṇa: Viṣṇu and jīvas are inconceivably distinct yet similar.

sadly this is insuficient and from a Gaudiya prespective incorect , .....as a Gaudiya let me please try to explain Achintya bedha-abheda tattva , firstly Sri Krsna Chaitanya being the lord himself in the guise of his own devotee and comming after Sri Madhavacharya ji and Sri Ramanujacharya ji, took both Tattvavada and Visistadvaita veiws and understanding their premiss went further still refining both veiws and presenting Achintya-bedha-abheda-tattva ; 'simultaneous oneness and difference', ... this way he contradicted neither but went further explaining 'smultanious oneness' in that we are without doubt qualitatively one, in that we are individual expansions of the lord him self , as a spark issuing from fire is of the same quality and potentality , ...but quantitively it different ,
...this is not a case of ''similarity'' ..as jiva' we are identical in quality , yet we are different we are forgettfull of our true nature , ...Sri Krsna is never forgetfull , as is illustrated in the Gita when Sri Krsna explains to Arjuna ''that he remembers all his past births, where as Arjuna does not , ...allthough we are of the same eternal nature we ourselves are not Sat-cit-ananda vigraha , the lord however neverchanges his Sat-chit-ananda body , he is not forgetfull and he is unchanging , ...

for this reason a Gaudiya never assumes him self to be on the same level as the Supreme , he wishes only even when realised , to be the eternal servitor , the devotee, ....so you l hope can see that there is no question of similarity as there is no comparison in greatness nor fullness , nor completeness , .....

All of the above three schools hold that Viṣṇu • never undergoes bondage of samsāra • never comes under the influence of ignorance • never assumes a prākṛta (material/physical) body. Even His avatāras such as Rāma, Kṛṣṇa are sacchidānanda vigrahas.

yes , here we agree

*Distinct = recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type
**Separate = forming or viewed as a unit apart or by itself. No such claim is made in Tattvavāda

from Gaudiya perspctive destinct would be an odd chioce of word it only implies that there is a distinguishable difference but not in this instance to that of ''similar type'' as jiva is of identical type .

^Oneness here is not the absolute unity / non-dualism and is as in the definition: the fact or state of being unified or whole, though comprised of two or more parts.

@Chakra ji , @kalyan ji , ..ll would value your imput as to how Sri Ramanujacharya ji taught this ? as l think it is best that each school describe its own beleifs and the realisations of its acharyas for this reason l am reluctant to coment on Tattvavada, or upon Visisadvaita , .....

however oneness to me is the state of God Consciousness , the state in which devotion becomes absolute
thus illustrating perfectly ''oneness and difference''

 

[Acintya_Ash]

IMO, Advaita can also be called "Simultaneous Oneness and Difference". Paramarthika, being the state of Oneness and Vyavaharika, being the state of Difference, both are simultaneous. Just a little food for thought.