Hindu?

[Surya Deva]

I am not sure how it is possible to have both an impersonal and personal god. Dare I say, I think this is notion is simply a rationalization by Bhaktas who realise that Brahman really is Nirguna, mysterious and absolute and worshipping a impersonal and absolute reality makes as much as sense as worshipping gravity or electricity, so to justify their worship they posit that impersonal also is personal.

I am a strict Jnanai though. I realise that all concepts that the humans have created about Brahman are finite and therefore by definition they cannot be the infinite Brahman. As I argued earlier, if you say "Brahman is love" then what do you mean by "love"? Do you mean to say Brahman is our kind of love or Brahman is not our kind of love?

 

[Madhuri]

I am not sure how it is possible to have both an impersonal and personal god. Dare I say, I think this is notion is simply a rationalization by Bhaktas who realise that Brahman really is Nirguna, mysterious and absolute and worshipping a impersonal and absolute reality makes as much as sense as worshipping gravity or electricity, so to justify their worship they posit that impersonal also is personal.

I disagree. It is a belief held by those who think it possible for the Divine to have various aspects.

 

[Surya Deva]

The aspects of the divine are all aspects that we perceive. They have a beginning, middle and end. The divine is by definition eternal and infinite. So how can the divine be possessed of these aspects?

And if we are going to say that the divine possesses aspects we see in the world, then why pick and choose those aspects to design the god we want? Maybe we can say the divine also possesses anger, hate, fear, pride and lust - for these are also aspects we perceive of the world.

 

[Onkara]

I think it comes down to who needs what.

Reaching our goal may not always mean walking in a straight line. There can be many twists and turns on the way. As long as I except that both the impersonal and personal is to help me reach God consciousness (enlightenment or what ever the goal is) then so be it. I am happy with that.

Of course, if we know our needs are that of a Jnani then knowing that fact can relieve us of any concern through recognising that others needs are different. I personally have had to focus on the philosophy which supports my understanding and go with the flow with the rest.

 

[Onkara]

The aspects of the divine are all aspects that we perceive. They have a beginning, middle and end. The divine is by definition eternal and infinite. So how can the divine be possessed of these aspects?

And if we are going to say that the divine possesses aspects we see in the world, then why pick and choose those aspects to design the god we want? Maybe we can say the divine also possesses anger, hate, fear, pride and lust - for these are also aspects we perceive of the world.

I don't disagree, but it depends on dualism versus non-dualism at this point. If we are still not convinced with either perspective then it is better you go with your description quoted above, it isn't wrong.

Philosophically, from a non-dual perspective, I cannot say something is not God. I am happy to elaborate if needs be.

 

[Surya Deva]

Philosophically, from a non-dual perspective, I cannot say something is not God. I am happy to elaborate if needs be.

Isn't non dualism to say: all there is is god?

To still insist there is god and something is dualism, no?

 

[Onkara]

Isn't non dualism to say: all there is is god?

To still insist there is god and something is dualism, no?

Exactly right, perhaps my post was not clear.

I must say all is God. So I cannot say that something which doesn't last or is limited such as love or an apple is not God too. I have to say all is Brahman.

So why would a Vedantin deny everything except Brahman (satchitananda), to be illusionary? Why say that the body or an apple is an illusion?

I say it is done so so that we can arrive at the point where we know that all is Brahman. In other words discrimination is just a method to see the whole truth. When this truth is known the "illusion" is seen not to exist and there is no further need in any discrimination methods.

Adi Sankara's (Absolute Summation) summarises this well:

Brahman (awareness) alone is real
The universe is not real (as a reality separate from Brahman)
Brahman is the universe

 

[Madhuri]

The aspects of the divine are all aspects that we perceive. They have a beginning, middle and end. The divine is by definition eternal and infinite. So how can the divine be possessed of these aspects?

And if we are going to say that the divine possesses aspects we see in the world, then why pick and choose those aspects to design the god we want? Maybe we can say the divine also possesses anger, hate, fear, pride and lust - for these are also aspects we perceive of the world.

Of course these are aspects of the Divine. Everything is Divine. anger, hate, fear, pride and lust would not exist without God. Maya is part of God. Maya is why we experience these harmful qualities. Nature is part of God. Nature is harsh. This material world is part of God. It is manifest of his energy. It is not separate.

The material world is temporary and it is also eternal. It goes through life cycles. It has a beginning and an end, and then it is reborn. In this sense, it is eternal.

God is also infinite. So yes, within God lies the potential for anger, hate, fear, pride and lust. But I believe, from my understanding of the religion, that these aspects of God are manifest within the material world as Maya and as the conditioned soul. And the material world is only one minute aspect of the Divine.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I am not sure how it is possible to have both an impersonal and personal god. Dare I say, I think this is notion is simply a rationalization by Bhaktas who realise that Brahman really is Nirguna, mysterious and absolute and worshipping a impersonal and absolute reality makes as much as sense as worshipping gravity or electricity, so to justify their worship they posit that impersonal also is personal.

You seem to a misunderstanding of the nature of Saguna Brahman in Advaita Vedanta.

This is what Sri Ramana Maharshi has to say on this subject.

Question: What is the best way of killing the ego?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: To each person that way is the best which appears easiest or appeals most. All the ways are equally good as they lead to the same goal, which is the merging of the ego in the Self. What the Bhakta (devotee) calls surrender, the man who does Vichara (self-enquiry) calls Jnana (knowledge). Both are trying only to take the ego back to the source from which it sprang and make it merge there.

Question: Cannot grace hasten such competence in a seeker?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Leave it to God. Surrender unreservedly. One of two things must be done. Either surrender because you admit your inability and require a higher power to help you, or investigate the cause of misery by going to the source and merging into the Self. Either way you will be free from misery. God never forsakes one who has surrendered.

 

[kaisersose]

I am not sure how it is possible to have both an impersonal and personal god.

I do not understand that either. To me, the two are mutually exclusive. That is, if God is personal, he is not impersonal. I believe this would be even more clear, if one puts the dictionary meanings of personal and impersonal, side by side.

I never understood the personal God concept. For example, in Vaishnavism, why would God looks like a human? Unlike us, he does not need a nose, he does not need eyes. We look the way we do for a reason and as that reason does not apply to a God, why would he look that way? It is more believable that we gave this human form to God, which also explains why we have several different forms all claiming to be God. Indian Gods look Indian, with ear-rings, silk dhotis, etc. Obviously, a God in a different part of the world will look very different, more inline with the local culture.

Once we are willing to give a shape to God, then we should also specify a size. But I do not see that being done. Anyway, as long as believers are comfortable in their beliefs, it does not matter.

 

[Satsangi]

Saguna versus Nirguna is an age old argument which is irrelevent. Both have basis in the Upanishads AND Puranas and hence BOTH are true. If we cannot understand it, that is our limitation and does not make the Scriptures false.

In Saguna Brahman one has two types of "Upasana". (1) Pratyaksha- human form like Lord Rama or Lord Krishna and (2) Paroksha forms like Lord Narayana, forms of Mataji etc.

 

[Kuvalya_Dharmasindhu]

Exactly right, perhaps my post was not clear.

I must say all is God. So I cannot say that something which doesn't last or is limited such as love or an apple is not God too. I have to say all is Brahman.

So why would a Vedantin deny everything except Brahman (satchitananda), to be illusionary? Why say that the body or an apple is an illusion?

I say it is done so so that we can arrive at the point where we know that all is Brahman. In other words discrimination is just a method to see the whole truth. When this truth is known the "illusion" is seen not to exist and there is no further need in any discrimination methods.

Adi Sankara's (Absolute Summation) summarises this well:

Brahman (awareness) alone is real
The universe is not real (as a reality separate from Brahman)
Brahman is the universe

Very well put, Onkara-ji! You basically clarified my older post. Thank you!

Of course these are aspects of the Divine. Everything is Divine. anger, hate, fear, pride and lust would not exist without God. Maya is part of God. Maya is why we experience these harmful qualities. Nature is part of God. Nature is harsh. This material world is part of God. It is manifest of his energy. It is not separate.

The material world is temporary and it is also eternal. It goes through life cycles. It has a beginning and an end, and then it is reborn. In this sense, it is eternal.

God is also infinite. So yes, within God lies the potential for anger, hate, fear, pride and lust. But I believe, from my understanding of the religion, that these aspects of God are manifest within the material world as Maya and as the conditioned soul. And the material world is only one minute aspect of the Divine.

Madhuri-ji, reading your posts is sometimes akin to listening to a beautiful bhajan!

I do not understand that either. To me, the two are mutually exclusive. That is, if God is personal, he is not impersonal. I believe this would be even more clear, if one puts the dictionary meanings of personal and impersonal, side by side.

I never understood the personal God concept. For example, in Vaishnavism, why would God looks like a human? Unlike us, he does not need a nose, he does not need eyes. We look the way we do for a reason and as that reason does not apply to a God, why would he look that way? It is more believable that we gave this human form to God, which also explains why we have several different forms all claiming to be God. Indian Gods look Indian, with ear-rings, silk dhotis, etc. Obviously, a God in a different part of the world will look very different, more inline with the local culture.

Once we are willing to give a shape to God, then we should also specify a size. But I do not see that being done. Anyway, as long as believers are comfortable in their beliefs, it does not matter.

Human conceptions, like personal and impersonal, are only mutually exclusive to those who have no realization of the Non-Dual Reality. To say that the infinite cannot take form for the sake of the devotee is just like saying that the infinite is unable to do something that by Its very nature (being infinite) It is be able to do. An example of this oxymoronic type of logic (that something infinite cannot appear finite for the sake of connection with the devotee) is like the constrictions that some of the Abrahamic Faith practitioners sometimes place on God with their own conceptions. They say "God cannot have form, that is blasphemy". Yet, isn't it more blasphemous to 'limit the Divine' by stating that It "cannot do/have something" like form (when once again, by It's very nature It's infinitely powerful), than saying "God took the form of Krishna, Buddha, Christ" etc....???

To be honest (with no intention of maliciousness), i'm very surprised that you don't understand this, Kaisersose-ji. In accordance with many of our sage's teachings, the reason God has form is to give a medium for connection to those devotees who cannot posit a God without form. Different people have different emotional, spiritual and mental dispositions and as Sri Ramakrishna clearly taught that if it makes it easier for someone to look at God as their Divine Mother or Divine Father (or in any of the countless other ways), they may use that conception on their journey toward Self-Realization.

 

[Atman]

I never understood the personal God concept. For example, in Vaishnavism, why would God looks like a human? Unlike us, he does not need a nose, he does not need eyes. We look the way we do for a reason and as that reason does not apply to a God, why would he look that way? It is more believable that we gave this human form to God, which also explains why we have several different forms all claiming to be God. Indian Gods look Indian, with ear-rings, silk dhotis, etc. Obviously, a God in a different part of the world will look very different, more inline with the local culture.

What about the idea of a personal God without definite form?

 

[kaisersose]

What about the idea of a personal God without definite form?

That is essentially formless or incomprehensible, which is more believable than an anthromorphic personal God.

However, it is still not without problems. A personal God is one who takes interest or plays a hand in the affairs of the world. When we attribute humans characterestics like anger, nepotism, etc., to God, we are undermining it by reducing it to our level. Its potential is also called into question by incidents like the recent Tsunami, holocausts, genocides, etc. Is it that this God is incapable of solving/preventing these problems or is it just not interested? Neither of these options show this personal God in a good light.

An impersonal God as in deism is relatively more immune to such questions.

 

[Madhuri]

That is essentially formless or incomprehensible, which is more believable than an anthromorphic personal God.

However, it is still not without problems. A personal God is one who takes interest or plays a hand in the affairs of the world. When we attribute humans characterestics like anger, nepotism, etc., to God, we are undermining it by reducing it to our level. Its potential is also called into question by incidents like the recent Tsunami, holocausts, genocides, etc. Is it that this God is incapable of solving/preventing these problems or is it just not interested? Neither of these options show this personal God in a good light.

Does God have to be seen in this good light in all instances?
I mentioned earlier that God is nature itself. God is the greatness and the harshness. God is life and devastation. God is a giver and taker. God is anger and forgiveness. If you believe that everything is a part of God, then you must also accept that God has all these different aspects.

It is the Self-Realised soul that is not affected negatively by these understandings. He realises how temporary it all is, and what lies beyond Maya.

Some people see the world as a play ground, a Drama, where God gets to explore Himself in various attributes, and where he also gets to play the hero. I do not know if this is a simplistic or accurate view of things, but it kind of makes sense to me when I consider that God does have unlimited attributes and that we are all part of God.

 

[kaisersose]

Does God have to be seen in this good light in all instances?
I mentioned earlier that God is nature itself. God is the greatness and the harshness. God is life and devastation. God is a giver and taker. God is anger and forgiveness. If you believe that everything is a part of God, then you must also accept that God has all these different aspects.

That is interesting. Once the anthromorphic form is off the table, the key difference between a personal God and an impersonal God is that the former takes a hand in the affairs of the world, while the latter does not.

So, in your understanding, exactly what is the hand taken by the personal God in our lives? We can take a couple of specific examples.

1) The Tsunami that devastated countless lives.
2) A succcessful actor who has more wealth than he needs and another person of the same age who is scrambling to send his kids to school and has no money to treat his diabetes.

In these two cases, what is the role - if any - played by a personal God? If no role was played, then what do we mean "taking a hand in the affairs of the world"?

Thanks

 

[Madhuri]

So, in your understanding, exactly what is the hand taken by the personal God in our lives? We can take a couple of specific examples.

1) The Tsunami that devastated countless lives.
2) A succcessful actor who has more wealth than he needs and another person of the same age who is scrambling to send his kids to school and has no money to treat his diabetes.

In these two cases, what is the role - if any - played by a personal God? If no role was played, then what do we mean "taking a hand in the affairs of the world"?

Thanks

1) Laws of nature, karma.

2) Karma

Ishwara does not interfere in these instances in the way that we understand the Biblical God version to interfere. He is not some guy in the sky observing and making decisions about how things will go down. The divine input is that the laws of nature and the individuals are a manifestation of a particular aspect of the Divine.

However, Ishwara, in the form of various avatars, takes appearance in the world for various purposes. This is when he is considered to interfere. This is the Bhagavan who enables us access to Vedic philosophy by restoring knowledge of it. He also helps to fulfill certain karmas of certain individuals.

 

[Surya Deva]

The notion of an avatar was created by the Vaishnavana cult of Krishna which arose after the death of Krishna. The historical Krishna is probably nothing like the Krishna described in Vaishnava scriptures. If we go by the Mahabharata accounts and compare and contrast with the Puranic accounts we get a completely different picture of Krishna. Nor is it likely that the Bhagvad Gita was really spoken by Krishna, but was most likely a scripture composed by a Vaishnava devotee and attributed to Krishna. This would not be the first time in the Indian tradition that an anonymous author would compose a scripture and then attribute it to a famous Indian personality(Yoga Vaisistha, Shiva Samhita etc)

The avatar concept is not to be found anywhere else in Hinduism prior to the Vaishnava cult. The Vaishnavas needed a personal god, they needed scriptures and they needed a philosophy to rationalise their worship of a personal god. It is very similar to the cult of Jesus. The cult of Jesus needed a more human personal god(Jesus Christ as the son of god) they needed scriptures(gospels) and they needed a philosophy to rationalise their worship of a human personal god(trinity)

All I can see evidence of so far for the existence of a personal god is just human construction. All the personal gods that we know from every part of the world can be traced to humans. Why unnecessarily multiply quantities? It is obvious that the god-concept comes from humans. The answer to be sought for what god is, is in human psychology. Not in some idol.

 

[Madhuri]

The notion of an avatar was created by the Vaishnavana cult of Krishna which arose after the death of Krishna. The historical Krishna is probably nothing like the Krishna described in Vaishnava scriptures. If we go by the Mahabharata accounts and compare and contrast with the Puranic accounts we get a completely different picture of Krishna. Nor is it likely that the Bhagvad Gita was really spoken by Krishna, but was most likely a scripture composed by a Vaishnava devotee and attributed to Krishna. This would not be the first time in the Indian tradition that an anonymous author would compose a scripture and then attribute it to a famous Indian personality(Yoga Vaisistha, Shiva Samhita etc)

Look at all this lovely speculation. Do you have something to show us to back up your opinion?

 

[Madhuri]

The avatar concept is not to be found anywhere else in Hinduism prior to the Vaishnava cult. The Vaishnavas needed a personal god, they needed scriptures and they needed a philosophy to rationalise their worship of a personal god. It is very similar to the cult of Jesus. The cult of Jesus needed a more human personal god(Jesus Christ as the son of god) they needed scriptures(gospels) and they needed a philosophy to rationalise their worship of a human personal god(trinity)

All I can see evidence of so far for the existence of a personal god is just human construction. All the personal gods that we know from every part of the world can be traced to humans. Why unnecessarily multiply quantities? It is obvious that the god-concept comes from humans. The answer to be sought for what god is, is in human psychology. Not in some idol.

By the way, Rig Veda is very focussed on personal aspects of the Divine. It mention Vishnu, Rudra, and very importantly, Purusha.

What makes you think that the concept of personal God was not part of the very ancient Hindu religions?