why do we need "GOD"?

I started a thread "why do we need dwarapalakas in Temples". It got good responses.

But my quest is even more fundamental.
I do not have answers.

I believe in the concept of Vedantic Brahman, not an activist GOD.

When I consider myself as a limited being with a limited body, mind and Intellect, separate from the rest of the universe, those are my current notions. When I look at the universe which is unlimited, I wonder where did it come from. To account for the universe, I bring in Isvara or God, who is the creator of this universe. To create this he needed:

1. Material to create
2. Power to create and
3. Knowledge or know-how of how to create.

Since I cannot bring in another God to create all of these, I have to endow my God with all these powers and knowledge. I can decentralize this concept and say I have three Gods – one to create, one to maintain and one to recycle – and each god is endowed with their needed powers to accomplish these tasks.

To make sure (at least in my mind) that these three different portfolios do not conflict with each other, I can invoke another supreme power overseeing all these subsets. This building of the castle can go on – as my imagination expands.
All this arises because I consider myself as a limited entity and therefore I have to bring in the concept of Isvara to account the presence of an unlimited universe.

But when I recognize that I am not this body, mind and intellect, but consciousness that cannot have any limitations, then all the above concepts also topple down along with my notions of separateness from the rest of the universe.

It is like pot space thinking that it is only a space limited by the pot and that the outside space is different and then imagining that there is a super pot that created the whole universal space different from the tiny pot space that I am. But when the pot space recognizes that I am ‘The Space’ and that space is single and not plural – i.e. space in the pot is the same as the space everywhere – then the concept of superpot also goes away.

The bottom line is these are concepts in the mind and one can devise one God, many gods and supergods with mahaashakti’s etc, as long as one does not question the validity of even the existence of the universe separate from me. Scripture ultimately declares you are that Brahman and there is nothing other than Brahman. Then all others concepts drop out as just notions of the ignorant jiiva.

We create God and endow Him with all super powers so that He can create us and the universe. Now who is the mahaashakti? – the God or the one who created even the God with all those powers! One can invoke mahaashakti to create the God, but who created that mahaashakti? – Another mahaashakti. One can go on but the buck has to stop somewhere. Mind always seeks something supreme, but ultimately one has to examine carefully what is that mind itself that is seeking. Then the very seeking itself dissolves.


http://advaitaforum.org/discourses-by-dr-sadananad/god-creation-and-ignorance/

Obviously the dreamer has the ignorance about his waker status but the dreamer himself is the product of the ignorance too. It is a chicken-and-egg situation. The problem is that an ignorant dreamer is trying to analyze the ignorance of the dream-state while he is drowned by that ignorance. When he awakes, he has no question whatsoever about the whereabouts of
From the dreamer’s point of view – there is no beginning for the dream – he will never know when the dream started.

Ignorance itself is unreal. It is a concept like Isvara, only brought in to explain that which cannot be explained otherwise. Concepts are in the mind – their validity is as real as the mind itself. But the ignorance as well as the explanation all tumble down in the awakening. One is back to perfect bachelor status when one is awakened!

Hence Shankara rightly says all of this cannot be explained (anirvachaniiyam) since even the explanation is by the mind to the mind and is ontologically of the same status as the mind itself.

Therefore there is no real problem. The only problem is in giving importance to it as real and then asking how Brahman can have ignorance. If ignorance is other than Brahman, then Brahman is no more Brahman (one without a second). The jiiva has the ignorance since he is searching for happiness thinking that he is unhappy.


http://advaitaforum.org/discourses-by-dr-sadananad/god-creation-and-ignorance/

Brahman is the evolution, that all matter and beings in Universe undergo.

Atman exists in this Universe in the form of Brahman which is evolution. As one observes Universe evolving, we think there is some force guiding that evolution and we name that force as 'Atman'.

***

'Manas' is mind, something which 'Virtually' exists in us even when we have no thoughts (not just in waking up state, dream state, but even in deep sleep and in the silence far beyond). This 'manas' is 'virtual' in the sense it 'seems to be there' , it 'has to be there', but we can't actually locate it. It exists far beyond the wake-up, dream and sleep states of a person.

At-manas is extremely virtual. As one observes the evolving Universe, we say that there is something extremely virtual, far beyond the wake-up, dream and sleep states of Universe and we name it At-manas, which means extreme manas (extremely virtual).

This is what our Vedanta says.

***

All divinities (Shiva, Shakti, Skanda, Ganapati, Vishnu, Brahma, Indra, Agni, vAyu, Varuna) are all manifestations of Atman (the extremely virtual beyond everything) when it undergoes evolution (Brahman).

We praise these divinities, their characteristics and invoke these divinities in us. Shaivites, Vaishnavites, Shaktas, Ganapatyas assign their 'preeti devata' to be the primary manifestation of that Atman and celebrate them.

***

Brahman, the evolution is a 'process'. It is not a divinity (deva) like Shiva, Shakti, Skanda, Ganapati, Indra, vAyu, Vishnu, Agni etc.. The divinities are some physical manifestations of evolution of Universe. Brahman is simply the evolutionary process.

The way Brahman, the evolution works in us (the human beings), is to seed the characteristics of 'seeking' in us. This seeking happens through the 'karanas', the instruments of seeking or more precisely the 'Karanas'/Instruments of brahman, the evolution.

There are three antaH-karanas (three internal instruments) and ten bAhya-karanas (ten external instruments) that facilitate this evolution.

***

The three antaH-karanas/internal instruments are 'Manas', 'Citta' and Buddhi.

Manas is that, which exists even without thoughts (the virtual).
Citta are thoughts that manifest on top of manas.
Buddhi is information/knowledge that manifests on top of Citta

The above three are internal instruments that help us seek and further the process of Brahman, the evolution.

****

The ten external karanas or instruments of brahman, the evolution are the Buddhi Indriyani and Karma Indriyani.

Buddhi-Indriyani are the five external organs/processes that add to Buddhi. They are Sight/cakSu, Smell/Ghrana, Hearing/zrotram, Taste/rasana and Touch/tvaca. These are external instruments that further the process of Brahman, the evolution, by adding/modifying/removing information/knowledge and evolving our Buddhi.

Karma-Indriyani are the five external organs/processes that add to Karma, the work we perform. They are Hands (Work by hands)/pANi, Legs (Movement)/pAda, Digestion/Excretion/pAyu, Reproduction/upasthA and Speech/vaca. These are external instruments that further the process of Brahman, the evolution by adding/modifying/removing the work we perform and evolving our body.

***

We understand divinities (devas, devis, devatas) which are physical (gross/sthula) manifestations of the Atman. In a western way we treat them as 'God' or map them to western concept of 'Gods' and understand them.

We don't understand brahman, which is the process, because it is not a physical (but a subtle/sukshma) manifestation. Hence the nature of brahman became a subject of different philosophies and ideologies.

All these confusions will go off, once we understand Brahman is expansion or evolution more precisely.

-TBT

Thanks for the participation.

Atman exists in this Universe in the form of Brahman which is evolution. As one observes Universe evolving, we think there is some force guiding that evolution and we name that force as 'Atman'.

Click to expand...

If there is nothing other than Brahman, there is no manifestation.
There can be a mirage, but not a reality other than Brahman.
What you call manifestation is purely an illusion and this illusion is only visible to you.
This illusion is like a dream and you alone can see it. I can not see your dreams.

brahma satyam jagan-mithyä jivo brahmaiva näparah ||​

​

- meaning - what has been stated by millions of texts; that is, Brahman alone is real and this jagat is mithyä, and the jiva is non-different from Brahman.’

prasad1 said:

Thanks for the participation.


If there is nothing other than Brahman, there is no manifestation.
There can be a mirage, but not a reality other than Brahman.
What you call manifestation is purely an illusion and this illusion is only visible to you.
This illusion is like a dream and you alone can see it. I can not see your dreams.

brahma satyam jagan-mithyä jivo brahmaiva näparah ||​

- meaning - what has been stated by millions of texts; that is, Brahman alone is real and this jagat is mithyä, and the jiva is non-different from Brahman.’

Click to expand...

The physical/gross manifestation of Atman are the devatas (deva, devi). The subtle/sukshma/process manifestation of Atman is Brahman, the evolution. There is no confusion here.

Brahman, the evolution is the process, as i said. It is Atman that manifests as the various physical divinities (Shiva, Shakti, Skanda, Ganapati, Vishnu, Brahma, Indra, Agni, vAyu etc etc). That's why I wrote how different people invoke their priya devata/divinity as the ultimate Atman.

brahma satyam jagan-mithyä jivo brahmaiva näparah

The text is correct.

Satyam - not changing/True/eternal.
Mithya - alternate/opposite/contrary and with respect to satyam it is false.
Jagat - those that are born (ja) and move (ga), the born and moving. It is the world of living beings or life.
na apara - means no other, none other, not any other
jiVa - life, living beings

(Brahman) Evolution alone is Satyam/True/not changing. The worlds of living beings (Jaga) is mithya/contrary (as it is always evolving/changing subjected to Brahman). Brahman (evolution) is not other than (in) living beings (Jivo)

Brahman is in all Jiva. Hence they are always changing/contrary to satyam. Brahman is satyam.

Simply 'change is the only constant'. That's all.

-TBT

prasad1 said:

I started a thread "why do we need dwarapalakas in Temples". It got good responses.

But my quest is even more fundamental.
I do not have answers.

I believe in the concept of Vedantic Brahman, not an activist GOD.

When I consider myself as a limited being with a limited body, mind and Intellect, separate from the rest of the universe, those are my current notions. When I look at the universe which is unlimited, I wonder where did it come from. To account for the universe, I bring in Isvara or God, who is the creator of this universe. To create this he needed:

1. Material to create
2. Power to create and
3. Knowledge or know-how of how to create.

Since I cannot bring in another God to create all of these, I have to endow my God with all these powers and knowledge. I can decentralize this concept and say I have three Gods – one to create, one to maintain and one to recycle – and each god is endowed with their needed powers to accomplish these tasks.

To make sure (at least in my mind) that these three different portfolios do not conflict with each other, I can invoke another supreme power overseeing all these subsets. This building of the castle can go on – as my imagination expands.
All this arises because I consider myself as a limited entity and therefore I have to bring in the concept of Isvara to account the presence of an unlimited universe.

But when I recognize that I am not this body, mind and intellect, but consciousness that cannot have any limitations, then all the above concepts also topple down along with my notions of separateness from the rest of the universe.

It is like pot space thinking that it is only a space limited by the pot and that the outside space is different and then imagining that there is a super pot that created the whole universal space different from the tiny pot space that I am. But when the pot space recognizes that I am ‘The Space’ and that space is single and not plural – i.e. space in the pot is the same as the space everywhere – then the concept of superpot also goes away.

The bottom line is these are concepts in the mind and one can devise one God, many gods and supergods with mahaashakti’s etc, as long as one does not question the validity of even the existence of the universe separate from me. Scripture ultimately declares you are that Brahman and there is nothing other than Brahman. Then all others concepts drop out as just notions of the ignorant jiiva.

We create God and endow Him with all super powers so that He can create us and the universe. Now who is the mahaashakti? – the God or the one who created even the God with all those powers! One can invoke mahaashakti to create the God, but who created that mahaashakti? – Another mahaashakti. One can go on but the buck has to stop somewhere. Mind always seeks something supreme, but ultimately one has to examine carefully what is that mind itself that is seeking. Then the very seeking itself dissolves.


http://advaitaforum.org/discourses-by-dr-sadananad/god-creation-and-ignorance/

Click to expand...

You don't need God, at-least, not now. But, He helped you when you were still in your mom's tummy by taking care of all the biological activities that even your mom couldn't help you with then. Making sure you are fed, pedaling the time wheel so everything happens on time so your body is capable of all the functions that you have today. While it is easy to get lost in Vedantic thought, there are ground realities which are taken care of even today for your well being. I think it is OK to attribute those activities - all of which you are not even aware of - to God and learn to thank him once in a while....

agopal said:

You don't need God, at-least, not now. But, He helped you when you were still in your mom's tummy by taking care of all the biological activities that even your mom couldn't help you with then. Making sure you are fed, pedaling the time wheel so everything happens on time so your body is capable of all the functions that you have today. While it is easy to get lost in Vedantic thought, there are ground realities which are taken care of even today for your well being. I think it is OK to attribute those activities - all of which you are not even aware of - to God and learn to thank him once in a while....

Click to expand...

Sir,
You can have your faith, I can not approve or disapprove your faith.
I do not believe that there can be an activist 'god'. There is order in Brahman, everything happens in Brahman.
But if there was a benevolent activist 'god', then there can be no child should suffer, but THEY DO.
It must be their karma and 'God' does not overrule that. So there can be no activist 'god'.

prasad1 said:

Sir,
You can have your faith, I can not approve or disapprove your faith.
I do not believe that there can be an activist 'god'. There is order in Brahman, everything happens in Brahman.
But if there was a benevolent activist 'god', then there can be no child should suffer, but THEY DO.
It must be their karma and 'God' does not overrule that. So there can be no activist 'god'.

Click to expand...

Good point. Makes sense to me .

Suffering is there does not imply god is not there. There is nirguna brahman and then there is saguna brahman. Saguna brahman is in charge of our reality and is the active God. Suffering and pain exist to be transcended through learning truths and improving spirituality in us.

Guys!


At the end of the day..how do we know for sure who is right?

Is it Brahman or Vishnu or Shiva or Krishna or Allah is Supreme.

None of us have evidence.

So best is just choose what suits us.

Krishna clearly showed His vishwaroopam..none of other avatars did that and He spoke in 1st person singular referring to Himself as the Supreme.

In the Qura'n we would find Allah referring to Himself as Supreme too.

So who is right?

May be everyone is right or none are right.

So just choose what suits us.

Some dont even need God..its up to us finally.

renuka said:

Guys!


At the end of the day..how do we know for sure who is right?

Is it Brahman or Vishnu or Shiva or Krishna or Allah is Supreme.

None of us have evidence.

So best is just choose what suits us.

Krishna clearly showed His vishwaroopam..none of other avatars did that and He spoke in 1st person singular referring to Himself as the Supreme.

In the Qura'n we would find Allah referring to Himself as Supreme too.

So who is right?

May be everyone is right or none are right.

So just choose what suits us.

Some dont even need God..its up to us finally.

Click to expand...

That is the reason we need an objective definition such as spiritual energy. The ultimate spiritual energy is God. Different groups of people have interpreted that in a different way in accordance with place and time. We need interpretations that change with place and time and at some point these become coexistent and come off as different beliefs. I believe each such set of beliefs has a purpose in the evolution of souls and in the grand scheme of things.

sravna said:

Suffering is there does not imply god is not there. There is nirguna brahman and then there is saguna brahman. Saguna brahman is in charge of our reality and is the active God. Suffering and pain exist to be transcended through learning truths and improving spirituality in us.

Click to expand...

So there are two Brahmans in your understanding.. LOL
Only in this forum we can find such confused statements.

a-TB said:

So there are two Brahmans in your understanding.. LOL
Only in this forum we can find such confused statements.

Click to expand...

When will you stop making such silly and childish statements? and show the humility to ask for clarification.

Gentlemen,
Stop hijacking all threads for your petty squabbles.:focus:

I was of the firm opinion that God is a myth propagated by persons with unscientific minds. That was in my teens and into the early thirties of my life. I used to argue with both my grandfathers and occasionally even with my father that science could explain better all facets of tangible things rather than God or religion. Fortunately for me both my grandfathers and my father, beyond giving me a quixotic look or two, they went about their business with their benign smiles. At sixty, now, I realise the extent of my immaturity. Now I’m a firm believer of a Greater Force co-ordinating all activities in this Universe and beyond.

prasad1 said:

Gentlemen,
Stop hijacking all threads for your petty squabbles.:focus:

Click to expand...

I agree, I apologize if I have contributed to hijacking.

My question is a genuine challenge to what Mr Sravana was saying. It was absurd and pointing that out is not outside the topic area. His response is not to the point raised.

a-TB said:

I agree, I apologize if I have contributed to hijacking.

My question is a genuine challenge to what Mr Sravana was saying. It was absurd and pointing that out is not outside the topic area. His response is not to the point raised.

Click to expand...

Thank you.
Mr. Sravana used to be a rational person at one time.

renuka said:

Guys!


At the end of the day..how do we know for sure who is right?

Is it Brahman or Vishnu or Shiva or Krishna or Allah is Supreme.

None of us have evidence.

So best is just choose what suits us.

Krishna clearly showed His vishwaroopam..none of other avatars did that and He spoke in 1st person singular referring to Himself as the Supreme.

In the Qura'n we would find Allah referring to Himself as Supreme too.

So who is right?

May be everyone is right or none are right.

So just choose what suits us.

Some dont even need God..its up to us finally.

Click to expand...

Some doubts.

Can a human being show Vishwaroopam

Did Allah himself say or the Prophet Mohd.

CHANDRU1849 said:

Some doubts.

Can a human being show Vishwaroopam

Did Allah himself say or the Prophet Mohd.

Click to expand...

Islam doesnt have avatar concept.
Prophet was human...a messenger.

So no Vishwaroopam since no.avatar.

Btw Shaivaism too does not have Avatar concept but Nithyananda claims he is avatar of Sada Shiva...i am surprised becos he is fully into Shaiva agama but says he is Avatar of Shiva.

renuka said:

Islam doesnt have avatar concept.
Prophet was human...a messenger.

So no Vishwaroopam since no.avatar.

Btw Shaivaism too does not have Avatar concept but Nithyananda claims he is avatar of Sada Shiva...i am surprised becos he is fully into Shaiva agama but says he is Avatar of Shiva.

Click to expand...

Viswaroopam is related to Krishna and not Allah.

Who is Allah; God or human being.

CHANDRU1849 said:

Viswaroopam is related to Krishna and not Allah.

Who is Allah; God or human being.

Click to expand...

Allah is the Abrahamic God.
This god is the King, judge, bookkeeper, wetnurse, dictator etc.
According to Islamic belief, Allah is the most common word to represent God, and humble submission to his will, divine ordinances and commandments is the pivot of the Muslim faith. "He is the only God, creator of the universe, and the judge of humankind." "He is unique (wāḥid) and inherently one (aḥad), all-merciful and omnipotent." The Qur'an declares "the reality of Allah, His inaccessible mystery, His various names, and His actions on behalf of His creatures. In Islam, Allah is the unique, omnipotent and only deity and creator of the universe and is equivalent to God in other Abrahamic religions.
Regional variants of the word Allah occur in both pagan and Christian pre-Islamic inscriptions. Different theories have been proposed regarding the role of Allah in pre-Islamic polytheistic cults. Some authors have suggested that polytheistic Arabs used the name as a reference to a creator god or a supreme deity of their pantheon. The term may have been vague in the Meccan religion. According to one hypothesis, which goes back to Julius Wellhausen, Allah (the supreme deity of the tribal federation around Quraysh) was a designation that consecrated the superiority of Hubal (the supreme deity of Quraysh) over the other gods.

However, there is also evidence that Allah and Hubal were two distinct deities. According to that hypothesis, the Kaaba was first consecrated to a supreme deity named Allah and then hosted the pantheon of Quraysh after their conquest of Mecca, about a century before the time of Muhammad.

Some inscriptions seem to indicate the use of Allah as a name of a polytheist deity centuries earlier, but we know nothing precise about this use. Some scholars have suggested that Allah may have represented a remote creator god who was gradually eclipsed by more particularized local deities. There is disagreement on whether Allah played a major role in the Meccan religious cult. No iconic representation of Allah is known to have existed. Muhammad's father's name was ʿAbd-Allāh meaning "the slave of Allāh".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah

I happen to live in a Free country and I can post these comments.

CHANDRU1849 said:

Viswaroopam is related to Krishna and not Allah.

Who is Allah; God or human being.

Click to expand...

Vishwaroopam may not be what we understand. It was more symbolic showing that the entire known and unknown universe is in Brahman.
By definition that is correct.

The Brahman is similar to Infinity.
How do you explain to a child the concept of infinity?

[video=youtube_share;voy_fHfGFvY]https://youtu.be/voy_fHfGFvY[/video]

Vishvarupa is also interpreted as “the story of evolution,” as the individual evolves in this world doing more and more with time. The Vishvarupa Darshan is a cosmic representation of gods and goddesses, sages and asuras, good and the bad as we perceive in our own particular perspective of existence in this world.

The literary sources mentions that Vishvarupa has "multiple" or "thousand/hundred" (numeric equivalent of conveying infinite in literary sources) heads and arms, but do not give a specific number of body parts that can be depicted. Early Gupta and post-Gupta sculptors were faced with difficulty of portraying infiniteness and multiple body parts in a feasible way.[SUP][16][/SUP] Arjuna's description of Vishvarupa gave iconographers two options: Vishvarupa as a multi-headed and multi-armed god or all components of the universe displayed in the body of the deity. Early Vishvarupa chose the former, while Buddhist images of a Cosmic Buddha were displayed in the latter format. An icon, discovered in Parel, Mumbai dated to c. 600, has seven figures all appearing interlinked to each other. Though the icon mirrors the Vishvarupa of Vishnu, it is actually a rare image of the Vishvarupa of Shiva.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishvarupa

Chandruji,

Allah is the Abrahamic God.
This god is the King, judge, bookkeeper, wetnurse, dictator etc.

According to Islamic belief, Allah is the most common word to represent God, and humble submission to his will, divine ordinances and commandments is the pivot of the Muslim faith. "He is the only God, creator of the universe, and the judge of humankind." "He is unique (wāḥid) and inherently one (aḥad), all-merciful and omnipotent." The Qur'an declares "the reality of Allah, His inaccessible mystery, His various names, and His actions on behalf of His creatures. In Islam, Allah is the unique, omnipotent and only deity and creator of the universe and is equivalent to God in other Abrahamic religions.

Regional variants of the word Allah occur in both pagan and Christian pre-Islamic inscriptions. Different theories have been proposed regarding the role of Allah in pre-Islamic polytheistic cults. Some authors have suggested that polytheistic Arabs used the name as a reference to a creator god or a supreme deity of their pantheon. The term may have been vague in the Meccan religion. According to one hypothesis, which goes back to Julius Wellhausen, Allah (the supreme deity of the tribal federation around Quraysh) was a designation that consecrated the superiority of Hubal (the supreme deity of Quraysh) over the other gods.

However, there is also evidence that Allah and Hubal were two distinct deities. According to that hypothesis, the Kaaba was first consecrated to a supreme deity named Allah and then hosted the pantheon of Quraysh after their conquest of Mecca, about a century before the time of Muhammad.

Some inscriptions seem to indicate the use of Allah as a name of a polytheist deity centuries earlier, but we know nothing precise about this use. Some scholars have suggested that Allah may have represented a remote creator god who was gradually eclipsed by more particularized local deities. There is disagreement on whether Allah played a major role in the Meccan religious cult. No iconic representation of Allah is known to have existed. Muhammad's father's name was ʿAbd-Allāh meaning "the slave of Allāh".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah

I happen to live in a Free country and I can post these comments.

prasad1 said:

Majority of the people misunderstood the Vishwarupa Darshanam, as narrated in Srimad Bhagavad Gita.
When Arjuna asked Sri Krishna to show his Divine form (द्रष्टुमिच्छामि ते रूपमैश्वरं पुरुषोत्तम), Sri Krishna says as follows:

पश्य मे पार्थ रूपाणि शतशोऽथ सहस्रशः।
नानाविधानि दिव्यानि नानावर्णाकृतीनि च।।11.5।।
O Arjuna, forms of Mine, by the hundreds and thousands, of different sorts, divine, and of various colours and shapes.
इहैकस्थं जगत्कृत्स्नं पश्याद्य सचराचरम्।
मम देहे गुडाकेश यच्चान्यद्द्रष्टुमिच्छसि।।11.7।।
Now behold, O Arjuna, in this, My body, the whole universe centred in one including the moving and the unmoving and whatever else thou desirest to see.
​

---

The secret of the Vishwarupa lies in the above Sloka, wherein Sri Krishna said:

द्रष्टुमिच्छसि - whatever thou desirest to see.
Sri Krishna never said that I am showing the Vishwarupa to you and that these all comprise my Vishwarupa.
He simply said that "See whatever you want to see - द्रष्टुमिच्छसि".
So whatever Arjuna saw during Viswarupa Sandarsana, it was his own mind's projections and imaginations.
Sri Krishna did not show anything to Arjuna.

---

Coming to Sanjaya, he was just narrating the dialogues that took place between Sri Krishna and Arjuna. So Sanjaya just heard what Arjuna said but not what he saw.

---

The vision of GOD, is like projections on a WHITE screen. It will show whatever is projected on it.
GOD will show to the seekers of GOD, according to their maturity of mind and hence their own mind's projections.
To the Gnani, who lost all desires, only ETERNAL HAPPINESS remains, because that is his projection.
It is very subtle and beyond the imagination of the common man.
https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/...pa-darshan-to-arjuna-or-was-it-merely-a-proje

Click to expand...

I have had discussions with Mr KRN about Vishwarupa in another thread. But the statement below from the post above provides the most clairty for me .

The lines above "So whatever Arjuna saw during Viswarupa Sandarsana, it was his own mind's projections and imaginations.
Sri Krishna did not show anything to Arjuna.

---

Coming to Sanjaya, he was just narrating the dialogues that took place between Sri Krishna and Arjuna. So Sanjaya just heard what Arjuna said but not what he saw."

Excellent!