Is Brahman a Person?

[Omkara]

Namaste. I see.

I am not familiar with Vaishnava philosophies, only Shaiva ones. I didn't know they had a different idea about this...now I do.

Therefore, I shall do as I have always done...let Vaishnavas talk about 'Vishnu things' and I shall go back to the Shaiva Forum and talk about 'Shiva things'.

It seems to be the only area of HDF that people don't have a problem with me being on anyway.

Aum Namah Shivaya

Your posts seem to indicate that you are not familiar with Shaiva philosophies either. All Shaiva sects, even monistic ones, agree that Shiva is a person and has attributes. I suggest you do some reading on the basics of Shaivism before broadcasting your views on a public forum like thus.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

Because I practice Bhakti Yoga, my communion with the Divine is as Divine Personality with definite “qualities” and “attributes”. That is my nature, it may not be your nature.

However, just because that is my nature does not mean I ignore what I am taught by authority (in this case based in Saivism).

So according to what I am taught, the lexicon for Brahman is as follows:

--------------------------------------------------

Brahman: "Supreme Being; Expansive Spirit." From the root brih, "to grow, increase, expand." Name of God or Supreme Deity in the Vedas, where He is described as 1) the Transcendent Absolute, 2) the all-pervading energy and 3) the Supreme Lord or Primal Soul. These three correspond to Siva in His three perfections. Thus, Saivites know Brahman and Siva to be one and the same God: -- Nirguna Brahman, God "without qualities" (guna), i.e., formless, Absolute Reality, Parabrahman, or Parasiva -- totally transcending guna (quality), manifest existence and even Parashakti, all of which exhibit perceivable qualities; -- Saguna Brahman, God "with qualities;" Siva in His perfections of Parashakti and Parameshvara -- God as superconscious, omnipresent, all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful.
--------------------------------------------------

So from what I am taught – Brahman can be both with qualities (Saguna) and also without qualities or formless (Nirguna). And from what I have understood in regards to the Saiva teaching of pluralistic realism where Pati (God), souls and the world are coexistent, that two states can exist at the same moment, that we can be like salt in the water – e.g. there is still also “twoness” involved. There is both monistic and dualistic traditions and teachings. If I were to apply this to the Brahman:

What are the attributes of the mouth? (This is an example only). One could say, it has lips, teeth, it opens and acts as a specific function which is a door for food which travels to the stomach.

There are other examples of attributes of the mouth.

Yet, while I have communion with Shiva, in a form which some may call anthropomorphic, i.e. Shiva has a mouth, it does not seem logical to me to extend attributes of the mouth to the nature of Shiva. Shiva does not need to eat any food, ever. And whatever is considered “food”, can be processed or accepted, or shared by Shiva in any manner He chooses, just as He communicates in communion not literally with His mouth (which forming sounds by manipulating breath with tongue and lips and which might be considered an attribute of the mouth) in some cases, even in a formless manner.

So it does not seem logical to me to say that Shiva cannot be with form and formless both, with attributes and without attributes at any given moment, always, side by side, two realities at once or from one to the other and from the other back to the one, and so on. Shiva may have a mouth, one may ascribe attributes to a mouth – but what Shiva does with His mouth or whether he chooses to be with us without a mouth, that power is a form of comprehension that seems perfectly logical to those who have imperfections as myself.

Yes I understand that as the Divine is Perfect, what we think of as attributes of the mouth are not the “same attributes” of the mouth on the Divine. But a mouth seems to be pretty clear in regards to function. Shiva in His form, He may want to eat. What He eats, that does not limit Him to never eating again. He may speak. But that does not limit Him to communicating without speaking at all. He may be here as Lingam. Or He may be here unseen and without form. I always want Him to be with me as form, but that is my nature. Is Brahman a Person? Of course. Is Brahman formless. Yes, now or at anytime. Is Brahman not a person? He may always be a person for me. I believe in a Personal God. In fact, while it is not “politically correct” to say this, not only do I believe so, but I believe in MANY Divines, and many forms. It seems to not be in favor on the HDF so say “I believe”. But what can I do? And while I believe the Divine as a Personality, He may not be a person for another reason. Why cannot it be both? I think so. Though I have a lot of thinking and learning to do. For what little worth my advise would be, as a Westerner and a Hindu, I would recommend Bhakti Yoga as the “best path” for Westerners. Why? By experience and observation, and it is a path acceptable and taught to me by authority. It definitely will bring you to Moksha. It definitely is Hindu. But, I am not going to say that Brahman is only a person and cannot be else. I will just live as a Hindu, it works.

Om Namah Sivaya

[Omkara]

I have understood in regards to the Saiva teaching of pluralistic realism where Pati (God), souls and the world are coexistent, that two states can exist at the same moment, that we can be like salt in the water – e.g. there is still also “twoness” involved.

No, you misunderstand. The salt-in-water example (which is from the Chandogya Upanishad) is not about two coexistent states, but about one state ie. the state of liberation where the soul and God exist in union but the soul retains its individuality, just like the salt seems to have disappeared into the water, but the water still remains salty, showing that the salt has retained its individuality. The experience of oneness by the soul is actually an experience of the fact that the Lord pervades the soul and is inseparable from it.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Omkara

Thank you Omkara, yes I think we are in agreement. That is what I meant by "twoness" viz Two. The soul in this state can still be detected, it is there, the Second or two.

There are some devotees who always want to be the servant to the Lord, viz the Second.

This is authorized. We do not need to address Hladini energy at this time, but love is a means by Two.

Om Namah Sivaya

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

I want to clarify however, I am not an advaitan. I only am bowing to the teaching that Shiva can be both with form and without form, but my personal practice is Bhakti yoga. I am not a Vedantan. And as far as advaitan verse dvaita, I cannot understand advaita and connect with dvaita. But I am probably neither. I am just a Hindu who goes to temples and loves the Devas and Devi.

And with that, please continue your debates and enjoy! May the Brahman be with you!

Om Namah Sivaya

[Necromancer]

Your posts seem to indicate that you are not familiar with Shaiva philosophies either. All Shaiva sects, even monistic ones, agree that Shiva is a person and has attributes. I suggest you do some reading on the basics of Shaivism before broadcasting your views on a public forum like thus.

Namaste.

Take me to task in the Shaiva Forums then, please do so. Test me!

I shall stop posting about Philosophy here though,...I am not saying Shiva is without attributes. I am saying that Brahman is...but that is what I believe and what all of my Yoga training has taught me.

Please re-read my posts. Thank you.

By the way, Shiva Lingam is supposed to represent the 'Formless Shiva' or Sadashiva. If Brahman has a form, why worship Shiva Lingam and not just Lord Shiva?

*leaves here.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[Omkara]

I shall stop posting about Philosophy here though,...I am not saying Shiva is without attributes. I am saying that Brahman is...but that is what I believe and what all of my Yoga training has taught me.

So you beleive Shiva is not Brahman? Then how can you claim to be a Shaiva?

[McKitty]

Vanakkam,

Please note that the following post is only from the pov of the saiva school (which is mainly based on Agamas) I follow and learn from, I'm not a supreme authority in scripture and not claim to know anything better than anyone else.

From what I've learn, ParaSiva = Brahman. It is Siva self created, self conscious, without any form and attributes. It's supreme Brahman attained through Self Realisation, neti neti, the Supreme Reality.

ParaSiva created and create trough His ParaSakti, the mind, the action.

Apart of this Siva takes forms as SadaSiva with attributes and powers (Srishti, Sthiti, Samhara, Tirodhana, Anugraha). This is this Siva that is in the forms of murthis, and among these are different categories of forms of Shiva (with forms, without forms, with or without forms)

I cannot say anything as I don't know ParaSiva and will maybe not Realize ParaSiva until many lifetimes, but what created everything can only be all including, yet at the same time include nothing. It can have all names, categories, attributes within itself yet not be binded by any of them. I believe also ParaSiva to be self conscious, or at last with a consciousness. I don't think organized creation or organized action is possible without a consciousness

Aum Namah Shivaya
Aum Namah Shivaya

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Namaste

Because I practice Bhakti Yoga, my communion with the Divine is as Divine Personality with definite “qualities” and “attributes”. That is my nature, it may not be your nature.

Well then, ShivaFan seems to be quite a practical guy.

So from what I am taught – Brahman can be both with qualities (Saguna) and also without qualities or formless (Nirguna).

One small remark:
Term "Nirguna" does not specifically mean "formless" but only "without qualities". Thus it is even possible that Lord Shiva has his own form with five heads or faces, three eyes, etc which at the same time can be said is nirguna form and saguna form. That is to say Lord Shiva's form is, obviously, with many qualities and thus saguna, but still His form is nirguna or "without qualities", ie His form is without blameable material qualities because His form is pure spirit, pure Brahman that has nothing to do with material qualities of material nature.
So, obviously, the Saguna and Nirguna terms are not mutually exclusive, because one and the same thing can be both Saguna and Nirguna at the same time! I would say that this view is consistent with the descriptions that we find in the scriptures.

regards

[ShivaFan]

Namaste brahma jijnasa

Term "Nirguna" does not specifically mean "formless" but only "without qualities". Thus it is even possible that Lord Shiva has his own form with five heads or faces, three eyes, etc which at the same time can be said is nirguna form and saguna form. That is to say Lord Shiva's form is, obviously, with many qualities and thus saguna, but still His form is nirguna or "without qualities", ie His form is without blameable material qualities because His form is pure spirit, pure Brahman that has nothing to do with material qualities of material nature.
So, obviously, the Saguna and Nirguna terms are not mutually exclusive, because one and the same thing can be both Saguna and Nirguna at the same time! I would say that this view is consistent with the descriptions that we find in the scriptures.

This is very interesting and expressed very easily into a nice, brief but to the point, paragraph. I am going to appropriate this paragraph into my "perspectives on dharma" notes (don't worry - I will quote it as coming from you). I have taken other quotes from HDF into my notes, don't be surprised if I am not the only one. I have quotes from many of the members in notes, some of them really get to the point regarding one aspect or the other of all discussions on dharma and Hinduism from all sorts of perspectives. And sometimes it comes in very handy for others, too. Thanks again, Om Namah Sivaya