Spinoza tsu
New Member
Can you please tell me if there is a concept of "God that is all" and has no will(similar to pantheism) ,In Hinduism (quotes will be useful)
Thanks.
Thanks.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Para brhaman
- Thread starter Spinoza tsu
- Start date
Hinduism is pantheistic and panentheistic at the same time. Vishishtadvaita - Wikipedia For Vaishnavas there are verses in the Bhagavad Gita that support this. Gita: The Bhagavad Gita: a Hindu Pantheism. Keywords: pantheism, materialism, mysticism, science and religion, Hinduism, philosophy.
Spinoza tsu
New Member
Does Vishishtadvaita belives that the brahman has a will?
Brahman is everything (sarvam khalvidam brahma: "all this [we see] verily is Brahman"), so I guess one could say that Brahman is will. Understand that Brahman is not an entity, or a 'god'.
I see Brahman in Advaita as having a desire for finite experience. and a creative aspect.
I am not sure if that qualifies as what you call ‘will’.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
I like your idea, but wouldn't a pantheistic God preclude It from being panentheistic? Whereas on the other hand a panentheistic God is automatically pantheistic?
Yes there is.
I don't think it's contradictory. In Bhagavad Gita 10.20 Krishna says "I am the Self, O Gudakesa, seated in the hearts of all creatures. I am the beginning, the middle and the end of all beings." In 10.42 after describing all the things he is, and by extension what are Krishna he says "... But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe." So I think this is pantheism - "all is God", and panentheism - "all within God" at the same time: everything is divine, and is in the divine.
Spinoza tsu
New Member
Can you please explain yourself?Visistadvaita believes that the Supreme is both personal (has a personality) and impersonal (no qualities). We are also indeed pantheistic and panentheistic
My question is whether or not the supreme
"Care" about people's actions and life or if the supreme is more like nature "gives to everyone without discrimination"?
What do you mean by "no qualities"?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Perceiving the world one may think that Brahman has will, wants something, but since Brahman is all that exists, what would it want?
"Brahma satyam jagan-mithya" (Brahman is truth, the world/perceived is an illusion) Vivekachudamani - Wikipedia
- "Ekameva Adviteeyam" (Verily one, without a second): Chhandogya Upanishad
- "Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma" (All things here (are) Brahman): Mundaka Upanishad
- "Aham Brahmasmi" (I am Brahman): Brihadaranyaka Upanishad Aham Brahmasmi - Wikipedia
- "Tat Twam Asi" (That you are) Chhandogya Upanihad
- "Ayamatma Brahman" (This self is Brahman): Mandukya Upanishad
- "So Aham" (I am also that): Ishavasya Upanihad Soham (Sanskrit) - Wikipedia
- "Yathā soumya! ekena mritpinḍena sarvaṃ mṛinmayaṃ vijñātaṃ syāt,
vāchāraṃbhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyaṃ mṛittiketyeva satyaṃ." Chhandogya Upanishad 6.1.4
(Just as, O Gentle One, by a single clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, all modification are a corruption only in naming, but the truth being that all is clay.)
"Brahman is omni-present like ether (Akasavat Sarvagata) free from all modifications (Nir-vikara), absolutely Self-sufficient, Self-contained (Nir-apeksha), indivisible (A-khanda). It is not composed of parts (Nih-kala, Nishkala). It is Self-luminous (Svayam Prakasa, Svayam Jyoti)." https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_0/Brahma_Sutra.pdf
Last edited:
Spinoza tsu
New Member
"what would it want?" Where is it written?
Please show me a quote that support this idea.
Please show me a quote that support this idea.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
In my post above: Nir-apeksha, which doe not desire anything.
Now we are getting deep, really very deep in Hinduism, which you may not understand easily in one reading. What I have posted below is from the link that I gave in my previous post. One can navigate easily if the book is downloaded (https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_0/Brahma_Sutra.pdf).
"The Brahma sūtras (Sanskrit: ब्रह्म सूत्र) is a Sanskrit text, attributed to Badarayana, estimated to have been completed in its surviving form some time between 450 BCE and 200 CE. The text systematizes and summarizes the philosophical and spiritual ideas in the Upanishads. It is one of the foundational texts of the Vedānta school of Hindu philosophy. The Brahma sutras consists of 555 aphoristic verses (Aup adds: not even that, just lines loaded with meaning) in four chapters" Brahma Sutras - Wikipedia
Note: The book is very old and scholarly, but that too does not mean that all Hindus must follow it. A Hindu never abandons his right to form his own opinion whatever may have been written in the scriptures.
It is not a Bible or Quran that one cannot differ with it. I too differ with 'Brahma Sutras' on many points.
Chapter 2, Section 1, Topic 7
इतरव्यपदेशाद्धिताकरणादिदोषप्रसक्तिः l
Itaravyapadesāddhitākaranadidoshaprasaktih II.1.21 (155)
On account of the other (i.e., the individual soul) being stated (as non-different from Brahman) there would arise (in Brahman) the faults of not doing what is beneficial and the like.
Itaravyapadesat: on account of the other being stated (as non-different from Brahman);
Hitakaranadidoshaprasaktih: defects of not doing what is beneficial and the like would arise. (Itara: other than being Brahman, i.e. the individual soul )
Vyapadesat: from the designation, from the expression;
Hita: good, beneficial; Akaranadi: not creating, etc.; Dosha: imperfection, defect, faults; Prasaktih: result, consequence.)
अधिकं तु भेदनिर्देशात् l
Adhikam tu bhedanirdesāt II.1.22 (156)
But (Brahman, the Creator, is) something more (than the individual soul) on account of the statement in the Srutis (of difference) between the individual soul (and Brahman).
Adhikam: something more, greater than the Jiva; Tu: but; Bhedanirdesat: because of the pointing out of differences on account of the statement of difference. (Bheda: differ ence; Nirdesat: because of the pointing out).
The objection raised in Sutra 21 is refuted.
The word ‘tu’ (but) refutes the objection of the last Sutra. It discards the Purvapaksha (the dissenter). The Creator of the world is Omnipotent. He is not the imprisoned, embodied soul. The defects mentioned in the previous Sutra such as doing what is not beneficial and the like do not attach to that Brahman be cause as eternal freedom is His characterstic nature, there is nothing either beneficial to be done by Him or non-beneficial to be avoided by Him. Moreover, there is no obstruction to His knowledge and power, because He is Omniscient and Omnipotent. He is a mere witness. He is conscious of the unreality of the world and Jiva.
He has neither good nor evil. Hence the creation of a universe of good and evil by Him is unobjectionable. The Jiva is of a different nature. The defects mentioned in the previous Sutra belong to the Jiva only, so long as he is in a state of ignorance. The Srutis clearly point out the difference between the individual soul and the Creator in texts like “Verily, the Self is to be seen, to be heard, to be reflected and to be meditated upon” (Bri. Up. II.4.5). All these differences are imaginary or illusory on account of ignorance.
When the individual soul attains knowledge of Brahman, he remembers his identity with Brahman. Then the whole phenomenon of plurality which springs from wrong knowledge disappears. There is neither the embodied soul nor the creator. This Brahman is superior to the individual soul. The individual soul is not the creator of this universe. Hence the objection raised in Sutra 21 cannot stand. The possibility of faults clinging to Brahman is excluded. Though Brahman assumes the form of the individual soul, yet He is not exhausted thereby. But He remains as something more, i.e., as the controller of the individual soul. This is obvious from the distinction pointed out in the Sruti. Hence there is no occasion for the fault spoken of in Sutra 21.
Now we are getting deep, really very deep in Hinduism, which you may not understand easily in one reading. What I have posted below is from the link that I gave in my previous post. One can navigate easily if the book is downloaded (https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_0/Brahma_Sutra.pdf).
"The Brahma sūtras (Sanskrit: ब्रह्म सूत्र) is a Sanskrit text, attributed to Badarayana, estimated to have been completed in its surviving form some time between 450 BCE and 200 CE. The text systematizes and summarizes the philosophical and spiritual ideas in the Upanishads. It is one of the foundational texts of the Vedānta school of Hindu philosophy. The Brahma sutras consists of 555 aphoristic verses (Aup adds: not even that, just lines loaded with meaning) in four chapters" Brahma Sutras - Wikipedia
Note: The book is very old and scholarly, but that too does not mean that all Hindus must follow it. A Hindu never abandons his right to form his own opinion whatever may have been written in the scriptures.
It is not a Bible or Quran that one cannot differ with it. I too differ with 'Brahma Sutras' on many points.
Chapter 2, Section 1, Topic 7
इतरव्यपदेशाद्धिताकरणादिदोषप्रसक्तिः l
Itaravyapadesāddhitākaranadidoshaprasaktih II.1.21 (155)
On account of the other (i.e., the individual soul) being stated (as non-different from Brahman) there would arise (in Brahman) the faults of not doing what is beneficial and the like.
Itaravyapadesat: on account of the other being stated (as non-different from Brahman);
Hitakaranadidoshaprasaktih: defects of not doing what is beneficial and the like would arise. (Itara: other than being Brahman, i.e. the individual soul )
Vyapadesat: from the designation, from the expression;
Hita: good, beneficial; Akaranadi: not creating, etc.; Dosha: imperfection, defect, faults; Prasaktih: result, consequence.)
अधिकं तु भेदनिर्देशात् l
Adhikam tu bhedanirdesāt II.1.22 (156)
But (Brahman, the Creator, is) something more (than the individual soul) on account of the statement in the Srutis (of difference) between the individual soul (and Brahman).
Adhikam: something more, greater than the Jiva; Tu: but; Bhedanirdesat: because of the pointing out of differences on account of the statement of difference. (Bheda: differ ence; Nirdesat: because of the pointing out).
The objection raised in Sutra 21 is refuted.
The word ‘tu’ (but) refutes the objection of the last Sutra. It discards the Purvapaksha (the dissenter). The Creator of the world is Omnipotent. He is not the imprisoned, embodied soul. The defects mentioned in the previous Sutra such as doing what is not beneficial and the like do not attach to that Brahman be cause as eternal freedom is His characterstic nature, there is nothing either beneficial to be done by Him or non-beneficial to be avoided by Him. Moreover, there is no obstruction to His knowledge and power, because He is Omniscient and Omnipotent. He is a mere witness. He is conscious of the unreality of the world and Jiva.
He has neither good nor evil. Hence the creation of a universe of good and evil by Him is unobjectionable. The Jiva is of a different nature. The defects mentioned in the previous Sutra belong to the Jiva only, so long as he is in a state of ignorance. The Srutis clearly point out the difference between the individual soul and the Creator in texts like “Verily, the Self is to be seen, to be heard, to be reflected and to be meditated upon” (Bri. Up. II.4.5). All these differences are imaginary or illusory on account of ignorance.
When the individual soul attains knowledge of Brahman, he remembers his identity with Brahman. Then the whole phenomenon of plurality which springs from wrong knowledge disappears. There is neither the embodied soul nor the creator. This Brahman is superior to the individual soul. The individual soul is not the creator of this universe. Hence the objection raised in Sutra 21 cannot stand. The possibility of faults clinging to Brahman is excluded. Though Brahman assumes the form of the individual soul, yet He is not exhausted thereby. But He remains as something more, i.e., as the controller of the individual soul. This is obvious from the distinction pointed out in the Sruti. Hence there is no occasion for the fault spoken of in Sutra 21.
Last edited:
In the Bhagavad Gita Krishna, being Vishnu himself is the supreme God to to most Vaishnavas, says he is partial to no one.
"I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all. But whoever renders service unto Me in devotion is a friend, is in Me, and I am also a friend to him."
Here is one interpretation:
(more here 9.29 Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 9.29: The Most Confidential Knowledge, Text 29.)
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
"Samo 'haḿ sarva-bhūteṣu, na me dveṣyo 'sti na priyaḥ;
ye bhajanti tu māḿ bhaktyā, mayi te teṣu cāpy aham." BhagawadGita 9.29
"I am equal to all. I envy no one, nor anyone is dear to me. But devotees who have devotion towards me, such persons are in me and I am in them (purport: those who have the knowledge of Brahman know that they are in me and I am in them)".
ye bhajanti tu māḿ bhaktyā, mayi te teṣu cāpy aham." BhagawadGita 9.29
"I am equal to all. I envy no one, nor anyone is dear to me. But devotees who have devotion towards me, such persons are in me and I am in them (purport: those who have the knowledge of Brahman know that they are in me and I am in them)".