Thank you Balaji for a very thoughtful post. I do agree on many points, that any animal, plant, dust, molecule can be God. There is nothing particularly special about a species (humans) that make them uniquely qualified because they are made of the same molecules etc.
I think you have hit the nail on the head: there is no perfection. God's creation is deliberately imperfect, because that's what makes things interesting. For example in a perfect solar system, Pluto may be able to support life like Earth, but then what would be interesting about Pluto, or even Earth for that matter?
Even though I am not as wise as Bhishma, let me just stir the pot a bit more. There may be Godly qualities even beyond the 1000 stated. Maybe Duryodhana had some. Otherwise why was he reasonably successful in life? Of course he died. But so did Bheem, eventually.
Again it depends on what you define as God.
If Brahman is God, then there is no argument everything is in Brahman, there is nothing other than Brahman.
brahma satyam jagan mithya
jivo brahmaiva napara
Brahman is the Reality, the universe is an illusion,
The living being is Brahman alone, none else.
This statement, though it presents the core teaching in all the Upanishads.
[h=3]Sat-Chit-Ananda Brahman[/h] Although Brahman is beyond description, the Rishis (seers or sages) of yore declared, based on their personal experience, that it can best be described as sat-chit-ananda.
Sat means existence pure and absolute.
Chit means knowledge, or consciousness, pure and absolute.
Ananda means bliss, pure and absolute.
Our true nature is pure existence, knowledge and bliss. Deeply we know it and because of this we cannot settle for being mortal and experiencing any types of limitation to our existence. We have an infinite thirst for knowledge and constant yearning to experience joy.
Yoga is looking for happiness in the Self, the atman, instead of outside ourselves, in the sense objects.
In this definition of Brahman there is no room for any qualification.
