• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Belief in personal God VS Belief in Brahman

Status
Not open for further replies.

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
Dear Prasad Ji,

Subscribing to Brahman would mean that we have the subscribe to the Paradox too.

This would include embracing the possibility of an Personal and Impersonal Entity.

Why should we have problems accepting this fact?

Mostly everyone expects God to only be saving the world like a Bahubali and prevent natural disasters.

This is where I feel Religion has erred cos Religion at a superficial level gives us the impression that God is a Savior..Redeemer etc.

But if we contemplate on this..we ask ourselves "Is He really a Savior or Redeemer?"

Can it really be answered at all?

Yes or No?

Not possible at all to find the answer to this.

Its not easy for a human mind to accept the harsh fact that we are actually out here in existence totally on our own.

Prayer and a believe in a personal God gives us an anti depressant motivation effect.
It allows the human mind to take a break from being totally in charge.

It helps us unwind mentally.

If you ask me... Personal God or Impersonal God...at the end of the day He is a Paradox that can not be deciphered as how active or inactive He really is in our mind.

Finally its left to us to carve our own journey..the Only God who will be with us is SELF.

May be thats why its finally Aham Brahmaasmi.
 
Last edited:

thebigthinkg

Active member
just few thoughts...

Belief by definition is personal. We can have faith in sky, land, our chair, table, anything.. Our temples built according to Vastu sastra (manduka mandala) say that energy is in the structure, in the brahma-sthan and not in the idol in that place. Depending on shaivite, vaishnavite, saaktha rule, the idols were changed in these temples. At times even Jain Munis were mistook as Sakthi idols, placed and worshipped. Faith is such a personal thing.

Brahma in my understanding is expanded spacetime, brahman is further expansion of spacetime which actually contributes to evolution of matter and hence brahman can also be seen as evolution. Gods (Devas) are various divinities/forces that manifest in this process of evolution (brahman).

According to science, the start of evolution is Big-Bang and what is behind is not known (in the standard model). The forces and their physics then is hugely different from the forces and physics that we see after Big-Bang

According to vedic texts, "ko addhA veda ka iha pra vocat kuta AjAtA kuta iyaMvisRSTiH; arvAg devA asya visarjanenAthA ko veda yataAbabhUva" Who knows, who can say how from unborn this poured forth (creation); the forces/devas (that manifest now) did not exist then who can ". What existed before the pouring forth/emission is something that we may never know as what we see now did not exist then.

But the personal faith that we have can be on anything. It is the bridge between the 'real' (nara) and 'virtual/extremely virtual' (manas/Atman).

-TBT
 

a-TB

Well-known member
I am confused about post 1.
If Brahman is not active, and if there is only one Brahman who then created this world?
By saying I believe in Brahman, it makes that a personal god of some sort anyway. If not, why not?
 
OP
OP
prasad1

prasad1

Gold Member
Gold Member
A-TBji,
Let me explain my post#1.

Brahman:

Though a variety of views are expressed in the Upanishads, they concur in the definition of Brahman as eternal, conscious, irreducible, infinite, omnipresent, and the spiritual core of the universe of finiteness and change.

According to the Advaita (Nondualist) school of Vedanta, Brahman is categorically different from anything phenomenal, and human perceptions of differentiation are illusively projected on this reality.

Brahman, as understood by the scriptures of Hinduism, as well as by the 'acharyas' of the Vedanta school, is a very specific conception of the Absolute.This unique conception has not been replicated by any other religion on earth and is exclusive to Hinduism.

Thus to even call this conception of Brahman "God" is, in a sense, somewhat imprecise. This is the case because Brahman does not refer to the anthropomorphic concept of God of the Abrahamic religions. When we speak of Brahman, we are referring neither to the "old man in the sky" concept nor to the idea of the Absolute as even capable of being vengeful, fearful or engaging in choosing a favorite people from among His creatures. For that matter, Brahman is not a "He" at all, but rather transcends all empirically discernable categories, limitations, and dualities.


In the 'Taittariya Upanishad' II.1, Brahman has described in the following manner: "satyam jnanam anantam brahma", "Brahman is of the nature of truth, knowledge, and infinity." Infinite positive qualities and states have their existence secured solely by virtue of Brahman's very reality.

Brahman is a necessary reality, eternal (i.e., beyond the purview of temporality), fully independent, non-contingent, and the source and ground of all things. Brahman is both immanently present in the realm of materiality, interpenetrating the whole of reality as the sustaining essence that gives it structure, meaning and existential being, yet Brahman is simultaneously the transcendent origin of all things (thus, panentheistic).

One can say that Brahman Itself (Him/Herself) constitutes the essential building material of all reality, being the antecedent primeval ontological substance from whence all things proceed. There is no ex nihilo creation in Hinduism. Brahman does not create anything from nothing, but from the reality of Its own being. Thus Brahman is, in Aristotelian terms, both the Material Cause as well as the Efficient Cause of creation.

All reality has its source in Brahman. All reality has its grounding sustenance in Brahman. It is in Brahman that all reality has its ultimate repose. Hinduism, specifically, is consciously and exclusively aiming toward this reality termed Brahman.

https://www.thoughtco.com/brahman-of-the-vedas-1770045

Brahman is impersonal, transcendent godhead and the essence of existence. Everything that exists, including all the gods, are manifestations of Brahman, according to Vedic philosophy. It is also called Satchidananada, which literally means Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. It is both transcendent but not separate from creation. It is not a creator, it is creation. The Judeo-Christian idea of God is a Western, dualistic equivalent. God is seen as something separate from Creation and is its Creator. While Christians ignorant of Hinduism think that their concept of God is the only "true" concept, Hindus believe that all gods are personalized ways to relate to Brahman.

I think the Personal God is similar to Abrahamic God.
 
Last edited:

zebra16

Well-known member
I am confused about post 1.
If Brahman is not active, and if there is only one Brahman who then created this world?

What if the world is also a Brahman, i.e. an undivided indivisible part of Brahmin? Then there is no creation.
 

auh

New member
Faith is for tiding over difficulties or troubled phases. No other purpose served.

Having an ever questioning & contemplating nature is the only practical way of living.
 

a-TB

Well-known member
Dear Mr Prasad:

Regarding post 5 - That definition is so long for Brahman that it is hard to know how anyone can believe in that (though this is not to say I disrespect our sacred books)

Brahman is said somewhere as a 'cause' of two kinds. Well, cause has to be another word for creation. Abrham sounds lot like Brahman LOL

In the end it all belief or faith - hard to figure out what this world is all about
Thanks for sharing your views and the link
 

a-TB

Well-known member
What if the world is also a Brahman, i.e. an undivided indivisible part of Brahmin? Then there is no creation.

Dear Mr Zebra16,

This world seems to be assembled because it can disintegrate. Even atoms are smashed to some pieces. Also scientists create new items out of raw materials. So world is intelligently put together in my simplistic mind. Mars and galaxies have gravity, not an easy job for all these laws of nature to work together. How can there be not a creator since entire universe is intelligently assembled?

And it has to be an active creator with lot of power.. Where does all the power come from

Thanks
 

a-TB

Well-known member
Faith is for tiding over difficulties or troubled phases. No other purpose served.

Having an ever questioning & contemplating nature is the only practical way of living.

Have you gotten any answers LOL
 

sravna

Well-known member
Dear Mr Prasad:

Regarding post 5 - That definition is so long for Brahman that it is hard to know how anyone can believe in that (though this is not to say I disrespect our sacred books)

Brahman is said somewhere as a 'cause' of two kinds. Well, cause has to be another word for creation. Abrham sounds lot like Brahman LOL

In the end it all belief or faith - hard to figure out what this world is all about
Thanks for sharing your views and the link

Dear Shri a-TB,

Knowledge of brahman is said to be the highest knowledge. So it is apt that it is so difficult to grasp that knowledge. Brahman can be nirguna or saguna. The former is a timeless existence and its existence is just experiencing bliss and beyond thoughts and actions. The latter exists in the realm of thoughts and actions and is responsible for creation by willing it.
 
Last edited:

a-TB

Well-known member
Dear Shri a-TB,

Knowledge of brahman is said to be the highest knowledge. So it is apt that it is so difficult to grasp that knowledge. Brahman can be nirguna or saguna. The former is a timeless existence and its existence is just experiencing bliss and beyond thoughts and actions. The latter exists in the realm of thoughts and actions and is responsible for creation by willing it.

Dear Mr Sravana,

This is way too confusing .. now we have two Brahmans ?? that does not sound right even with what little I know ..

But you say there is a creator then ..Thanks .. will revisit the thread in a few days
 

sravna

Well-known member
Dear Mr Sravana,

This is way too confusing .. now we have two Brahmans ?? that does not sound right even with what little I know ..

But you say there is a creator then ..Thanks .. will revisit the thread in a few days

No problem. Good you got confused. That will set you thinking, the best way to understand higher knowledge if you are seeking it.
 

thebigthinkg

Active member
Dear Mr Prasad:

Regarding post 5 - That definition is so long for Brahman that it is hard to know how anyone can believe in that (though this is not to say I disrespect our sacred books)

Brahman is said somewhere as a 'cause' of two kinds. Well, cause has to be another word for creation. Abrham sounds lot like Brahman LOL

In the end it all belief or faith - hard to figure out what this world is all about
Thanks for sharing your views and the link

Brahman (in my understanding) is expansion. It is expansion of spacetime. (In what is called quintessence model) Expansion of spacetime happens when radiation energy becomes matter more and more and specifically when matter becomes more than radiation. In other words expansion of spacetime happens and accelerates with more and more of evolution of matter. So Brahman can be seen as 'evolution'.

(again this is my understanding) Long long ago, there could have been only Varna-Asrama-Dharmic society led by brahmanas (Knowledge providers), served Kshatriyas (service providers), provided by Vaishyas (material/goods providers) with some shudras (cheap or unskilled labor). This was a society led by knowledge providers (scientists and technologists as in the modern world). Probably this society had its own share of ills. Probably brahmanas being on top of chain became the villains for some/many.

From this society, people led by individual messiahs, whoever believed in a messiah, in someone who could deliver them off their difficulties with belief and faith rather than knowledge provided by brahmanas, separated out led by A-brahm. Abrahm is the first messiah of sorts. It is possible that this was coupled with migrations from East to west.

From there A-brahmic societies which believed in messiahs and their families, evolved further societies of messiahs of christianity and islam.

In the land of Bharata too, messiahs appeared in Jainism and Buddhism, which the varna-asrama-dharmic society fought a long struggle and the way it finally won over was to digest them inside.

Here I am not defending caste system (which is JAti). The real purpose and intent of varna-asrama dharmic society is lost when the 'dvija' system detoriates and jAti and kula became the main markers.

Except for the brahman/science part of it, other historical aspects are psuedo-theories of mine, just some loud thinking, with no substantiation.

-TBT
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
Brahman (in my understanding) is expansion. It is expansion of spacetime. (In what is called quintessence model) Expansion of spacetime happens when radiation energy becomes matter more and more and specifically when matter becomes more than radiation. In other words expansion of spacetime happens and accelerates with more and more of evolution of matter. So Brahman can be seen as 'evolution'.

(again this is my understanding) Long long ago, there could have been only Varna-Asrama-Dharmic society led by brahmanas (Knowledge providers), served Kshatriyas (service providers), provided by Vaishyas (material/goods providers) with some shudras (cheap or unskilled labor). This was a society led by knowledge providers (scientists and technologists as in the modern world). Probably this society had its own share of ills. Probably brahmanas being on top of chain became the villains for some/many.

From this society, people led by individual messiahs, whoever believed in a messiah, in someone who could deliver them off their difficulties with belief and faith rather than knowledge provided by brahmanas, separated out led by A-brahm. Abrahm is the first messiah of sorts. It is possible that this was coupled with migrations from East to west.

From there A-brahmic societies which believed in messiahs and their families, evolved further societies of messiahs of christianity and islam.

In the land of Bharata too, messiahs appeared in Jainism and Buddhism, which the varna-asrama-dharmic society fought a long struggle and the way it finally won over was to digest them inside.

Here I am not defending caste system (which is JAti). The real purpose and intent of varna-asrama dharmic society is lost when the 'dvija' system detoriates and jAti and kula became the main markers.

Except for the brahman/science part of it, other historical aspects are psuedo-theories of mine, just some loud thinking, with no substantiation.

-TBT

Then what about Rama,Krishna,Ramanuja,Adi Shankara?

Are they too A-Brahm Messiahs?
 
Last edited:

Vaagmi

Well-known member
Brahman (in my understanding) is expansion. It is expansion of spacetime. (In what is called quintessence model) Expansion of spacetime happens when radiation energy becomes matter more and more and specifically when matter becomes more than radiation. In other words expansion of spacetime happens and accelerates with more and more of evolution of matter. So Brahman can be seen as 'evolution'.

(again this is my understanding) Long long ago, there could have been only Varna-Asrama-Dharmic society led by brahmanas (Knowledge providers), served Kshatriyas (service providers), provided by Vaishyas (material/goods providers) with some shudras (cheap or unskilled labor). This was a society led by knowledge providers (scientists and technologists as in the modern world). Probably this society had its own share of ills. Probably brahmanas being on top of chain became the villains for some/many.

From this society, people led by individual messiahs, whoever believed in a messiah, in someone who could deliver them off their difficulties with belief and faith rather than knowledge provided by brahmanas, separated out led by A-brahm. Abrahm is the first messiah of sorts. It is possible that this was coupled with migrations from East to west.

From there A-brahmic societies which believed in messiahs and their families, evolved further societies of messiahs of christianity and islam.

In the land of Bharata too, messiahs appeared in Jainism and Buddhism, which the varna-asrama-dharmic society fought a long struggle and the way it finally won over was to digest them inside.

Here I am not defending caste system (which is JAti). The real purpose and intent of varna-asrama dharmic society is lost when the 'dvija' system detoriates and jAti and kula became the main markers.

Except for the brahman/science part of it, other historical aspects are psuedo-theories of mine, just some loud thinking, with no substantiation.

-TBT

Well done TBT. Some thinking indeed.
 

auh

New member
Dear Mr Zebra16,

This world seems to be assembled because it can disintegrate. Even atoms are smashed to some pieces. Also scientists create new items out of raw materials. So world is intelligently put together in my simplistic mind. Mars and galaxies have gravity, not an easy job for all these laws of nature to work together. How can there be not a creator since entire universe is intelligently assembled?

And it has to be an active creator with lot of power.. Where does all the power come from

Thanks

Hi a-TB,

Though addressed to shri zebra16, let me add my opinion here.

The intelligence that you see is a result of random trial and error experiments that had struck a balance somewhere (amongst the forces of nature). How many trillion years passed for this to happen, we do not know. So it is not an assembled intelligence that is handcrafted by one entity (creator).

Forces combine and produce results (living, non-living) and some have a higher relative state of balance.
 

thebigthinkg

Active member
Then what about Rama,Krishna,Ramanuja,Adi Shankara?

Are they too A-Brahm Messiahs?

My understanding is this..

Rama and Krishna were not messiahs. At the best they were kings following varnasrama dharma. Neither they denounced/renounced the vedic texts nor they left varnasrama dharmic society led by brahmans (knowledge providers).

Sankara abdicated Asrama dharma inspired by Buddhism (probably). But even he is supposed to have lived the life of a grhastha later.. He proposed a school of thought based on his understanding of vedas and upanishads and established institutions to popularize his school of thought.

Actually he is an example of how brahmanas, who were supposed to be knowledge providers, seek new knowledge and learning from vedic texts in their bid to keep the society evolving. But in a bid to make sense out of vedic texts in a rational way, he put them firmly in philosophical and spiritual domain (from which we could not return at all till now), as that is what he could do best at his time.

Ramanjua abdicated the jaateeya version of varna dharma, inspired by the philosophical basis of vedic texts propounded by Sankara.

These were not renouncing the vedas or a varnasrama dharmic society in which knowledge providers (brahmanas), material providers (vaishyas) and service providers (kshatriyas) are in a balance (rather than cheap labor (shudras) filled modern society) evolving the society together. Rather they were trying to make sense of vedic texts in their own ways.

They did not instill themselves as 'messiahs' giving new knowledge, new starting points, new ending points, new way of life..

-TBT
 

renuka

Gold Member
Gold Member
My understanding is this..

Rama and Krishna were not messiahs. At the best they were kings following varnasrama dharma. Neither they denounced/renounced the vedic texts nor they left varnasrama dharmic society led by brahmans (knowledge providers).

Sankara abdicated Asrama dharma inspired by Buddhism (probably). But even he is supposed to have lived the life of a grhastha later.. He proposed a school of thought based on his understanding of vedas and upanishads and established institutions to popularize his school of thought.

Actually he is an example of how brahmanas, who were supposed to be knowledge providers, seek new knowledge and learning from vedic texts in their bid to keep the society evolving. But in a bid to make sense out of vedic texts in a rational way, he put them firmly in philosophical and spiritual domain (from which we could not return at all till now), as that is what he could do best at his time.

Ramanjua abdicated the jaateeya version of varna dharma, inspired by the philosophical basis of vedic texts propounded by Sankara.

These were not renouncing the vedas or a varnasrama dharmic society in which knowledge providers (brahmanas), material providers (vaishyas) and service providers (kshatriyas) are in a balance (rather than cheap labor (shudras) filled modern society) evolving the society together. Rather they were trying to make sense of vedic texts in their own ways.

They did not instill themselves as 'messiahs' giving new knowledge, new starting points, new ending points, new way of life..

-TBT

In your opinion how would explain the term Avatar of Lord Vishnu?

Rama and Krishna are worshiped as Avatars of Lord Vishnu.

The geeta does say that not to be attached to flowerly words of Vedas that promise higher heavens and the Gorvardhana episode did reflect Krishna's stance on ritual worship of Indra.

BTW how did the Brahmana Varna acquire the knowledge?

Surely now you might need to touch upon the origin of the Vedas.

Would like your input here.


To be accuarte..no one Varna really leads society solo...all 4 varnas are dependent and interdependent on each other.

That is how even the Supreme Person is viewed.

So who is the leader?

No one in specific but all...the Varna system is best viewed as a functioning unit rather than making any one specific Varna as leader.

This is how Varna system gets misunderstood as being hierarchical in nature.

A better term to describe Sudra Varna would be Man power unit.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Thank you for visiting TamilBrahmins.com

You seem to have an Ad Blocker on.

We depend on advertising to keep our content free for you. Please consider whitelisting us in your ad blocker so that we can continue to provide the content you have come here to enjoy.

Alternatively, consider upgrading your account to enjoy an ad-free experience along with numerous other benefits. To upgrade your account, please visit the account upgrades page

You can also donate financially if you can. Please Click Here on how you can do that.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks