God cannot have Form?

[I-Ching]

sure, why not? post the Amazon.com link to your favorite translation. I enjoy reading, and believe that God talks to many different groups of people

Great to see that you are so open minded.
Check out the Vedabase. There many years of reading there.
I also recommend the I-Ching by Brian Browne Walker. It really helps you to access your inner-guru.

 

[Acim]

How can you limit God to not having a form? If you have a form and he doesn't it means that you are greater than He is. Vaishnava philosophy is not duality but oneness and difference.

Ya know I-Ching, for someone who is convinced he is not a Guru, you sure come off, consistently, like one.

Is there anyone on this thread where you feel full agreement with?

I almost feel like I could take something you said elsewhere, and you'd be like, "how can you say that when (insert textual reference here) tells us differently. I am very curious how you arrived at such an untrue conclusion."

Obviously I paraphrase. And ask that you take this with a grain of salt. I'm also not prepared to say I am all that different in this regard, but it just humors me how you have answers to one and all, and yet apparently feel (true) Guru is not within you.

Shine on.

 

[idea]

Great to see that you are so open minded.
Check out the Vedabase. There many years of reading there.
I also recommend the I-Ching by Brian Browne Walker. It really helps you to access your inner-guru.

wow, that's a lot to read through, thanks! as it so happens, I do have a copy of "As It Is" - I need to get that back out again, I guess I'll start there.

 

[Paraprakrti]

I would counter by saying that this formless conception of God is itself a form of idolatry.

 

[Madhuri]

I would counter by saying that this formless conception of God is itself a form of idolatry.

I would like to understand your reasoning behind this idea (I neither agree nor disagree, simply to do understand).

 

[Acim]

I would like to understand your reasoning behind this idea (I neither agree nor disagree, simply to do understand).

I second this motion.

 

[Paraprakrti]

...Because formlessness is a mental concoction. It isn't possible to worship the lack of something, in the first place. So what the formlessness worshipper is focusing his or her mind on, one has to wonder. And whatever it is, it is idolatry since it is completely speculative; Better to have some authorized form to worship rather than the imaginary lack of one.

 

[Acim]

And whatever it is, it is idolatry since it is completely speculative; Better to have some authorized form to worship rather than the imaginary lack of one.

Makes me laugh, is all I can (and am authorized to) say. :angel2:

 

[Paraprakrti]

Don't get me wrong. I don't think these sort of theists are horrible people who deserve to burn in hell or anything like that. And usually I wouldn't bother with how they prefer to worship and think of God. But this is a topic that often gets brought up a lot by them when they encounter a "hindu" or follower of Vedic religion.

 

[Madhuri]

...Because formlessness is a mental concoction. It isn't possible to worship the lack of something, in the first place. So what the formlessness worshipper is focusing his or her mind on, one has to wonder. And whatever it is, it is idolatry since it is completely speculative; Better to have some authorized form to worship rather than the imaginary lack of one.

Interesting! I think you may have a good point, although I cannot seem to put myself in the place of a devotee who worships the formless.

 

[Onkara]

Interesting! I think you may have a good point, although I cannot seem to put myself in the place of a devotee who worships the formless.

Interesting. I find the opposite. I struggle to worship God with form.

...Because formlessness is a mental concoction. It isn't possible to worship the lack of something, in the first place. So what the formlessness worshipper is focusing his or her mind on, one has to wonder. And whatever it is, it is idolatry since it is completely speculative; Better to have some authorized form to worship rather than the imaginary lack of one.

Everything is a mental concoction, from their point of view. That is why some might choose to go beyond form, considering it to be the changing aspect of the Lord too.

As for authorisation of form, that rests in the scripture such as the Bhagavad Gita, which I believe is the point you are making? The formless also exists in scripture. Ultimately it lies with the devotee as this is the only answer which fits with scripture in some people's opinion.

Achintya-bhedAbheda, advaita, dvaita etc aren't wrong. It is not about right or wrong, it is about being satisfied with the answers and removing the doubt which holds us back from the Divine.

 

[zenzero]

Friends Madhuri & Onkara,

Originally Posted by Madhuri
Interesting! I think you may have a good point, although I cannot seem to put myself in the place of a devotee who worships the formless.

Interesting. I find the opposite. I struggle to worship God with form.

Choosing ANY itself exposes the MIND [thoughts] and this exposure of the mind in itself creates the wedge between the individual and existence / truth.
Simply being aware of the mind itself is enough for any form formless form to drop and leave a still mind where the worshiper or the worshiped is not there.

Love & rgds

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

If I were to twist the meaning of that three letter word to the extreme it (and I mean "it" because it would not be gender specific) it would be no more than the personification of the laws of physics or nature and that goes without saying is totally without form.

 

[I-Ching]

Ya know I-Ching, for someone who is convinced he is not a Guru, you sure come off, consistently, like one.

Is there anyone on this thread where you feel full agreement with?

I almost feel like I could take something you said elsewhere, and you'd be like, "how can you say that when (insert textual reference here) tells us differently. I am very curious how you arrived at such an untrue conclusion."

Obviously I paraphrase. And ask that you take this with a grain of salt. I'm also not prepared to say I am all that different in this regard, but it just humors me how you have answers to one and all, and yet apparently feel (true) Guru is not within you.

Shine on.

I hope you don't mean that in the sense that I come off as arrogant, which I am trying not to.

I am simply dedicated to the Truth, at least the Truth as it has been revealed to me.

I have knowledge but not much realization. Guru is not a cheap title.

 

[Onkara]

Hare Krishna - ISKCON can come across as self-righteous.
I am not attacking this, but it is an observation which I pick up on whenever I come close to its teachings. I see it serves a purpose, to bring us to Krishna.

 

[Madhuri]

Interesting. I find the opposite. I struggle to worship God with form.

Lol, I am sure that neither is more or less natural. I think for me it is that I grew up with the concept of God as personal and with form. So I have tried to imagine thinking of God as formless and it just doesn't work in my mind. I don't even know how!

 

[Onkara]

Lol, I am sure that neither is more or less natural. I think for me it is that I grew up with the concept of God as personal and with form. So I have tried to imagine thinking of God as formless and it just doesn't work in my mind. I don't even know how!

I really find that amazing, perhaps you are even graced

 

[Willamena]

If I were to twist the meaning of that three letter word to the extreme it (and I mean "it" because it would not be gender specific) it would be no more than the personification of the laws of physics or nature and that goes without saying is totally without form.

"Personification" isn't form?

 

[Madhuri]

I really find that amazing, perhaps you are even graced

I don't know about that. Limited more like, considering that I see God as being both personal and impersonal

 

[I-Ching]

Achintya-bhedAbheda, advaita, dvaita etc aren't wrong. It is not about right or wrong, it is about being satisfied with the answers and removing the doubt which holds us back from the Divine.

I'm sorry if I am sounding self-righteous but I think that advaita is wrong.

Advaita is an atheistic conception. If you say that we are all God, that means your are basically saying that there is no God. You are putting yourself on an equal platform to God and therefore removing His authority.

It's like saying there is no President we are all the President.

What do you think the President would think about that?