Is God "imperfect?"

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X Bluesky LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sravna, then the stand wouldnt support a-dvaita. And neither would brahman be nirguna.

Dear Auh,

Brahman I mentioned is Saguna Brahma who wields Maya. Anything related to physical reality would point only to Saguna brahman

 

[Govinda]

Sangom ji,

Thanks for the welcome.

Just used 'potent' for strong, to relate to the potent God.

If there is no WILL, then how can any GOD (or anyone) be a concious person? Then, GOD must be a O-O-O robot, just act as it encounters anything, anywhere, anypower, anytime! In the latter case, GOD can't distinguish between GOOD and EVIL?

Another question, what is Omniscience by the way? Does it include Conciousness, which includes (complete) knowledge, reasoning of good vs evil, the right decision to act on them, and the consequences of the decision?

Without the definitions of the terms - Omniscience, Concious, Entity, WILL, etc.., we cannot go further. We are using 'GRAND bogus' terms without understanding the basic functions.

P.S: who is that forum companion ?

 

[Govinda]

Sravna ji,

Ekam Eva advitiam - Only one, no second/two. The idea of 2 Brahman contradicts the very theme of advaita.

 

[a-TB]

My view is not an assertion per ipsum; it is a response to the assertion that there is a conscious god that is capable of being everywhere, doing anything and having total knowledge. And this is applicable only if you come out of the paradox (refer my earlier post). Morever it seems that you are not sticking to one definition of god. God can mean different things to different sets of people. What is the definiton of god that you are alluding to here?

If god as a conscious entity encompasses both good and evil, then the paradox has to be answered. Simple. If you come out of the paradox - meaning that there is no conscious entity called god that does good and evil - then the conscious entity has to be removed. Otherwise, if there exists a probability that there is some entity that is entirely whimsical and capable of doing good and evil (we enter the paradox again), we need not be bothered by it (why call it god?).

O-O-O for only 'good' god has logical issues but good god that 'wield' power of evil/maya (to use Mr Sravana's term) means there is NO paradox. The issue is you are not satisfied that such a god is whimsical and unpredictable. Too bad such a god cannot live up to your expectations

As they say in starwars movies "May the force be with you".

 

[a-TB]

Dear Shri a-TB,

I would substitute good and evil with Brahman and Maya resp. Presence of evil is necessary because we learn more and quickly because of that. That is exactly the role of Maya.

Mr Sravana:

Is this like Christian God and the Devil?

Or are there two Gods with equal power (in which case there cannot be one god being omnipotent) . If other (maya) is not god, what is it - an instrument of some sort?

 

[sravna]

Mr Sravana:

Is this like Christian God and the Devil?

Or are there two Gods with equal power (in which case there cannot be one god being omnipotent) . If other (maya) is not god, what is it - an instrument of some sort?

Dear Shri a-TB,

Maya is not the exact equivalent of devil but that which obscures brahman/true knowledge. Just like nirguna brahman, maya is beginningless and endless. The effect of maya is ignorance which is the cause of all evil but maya works in such a way that the ignorance in every jivatma eventually disappears and the jivatma gets out of the effect of maya and finally attains true knowledge.

 

[Mohan Parasuram]

Dear Sirs,

One sees perfection in everything of Lords creation and when one does not realise that truth, one tend to see imperfection everywhere. It is the ultimate realisation within that helps to understand and see hs perfection in everything.

Rgds,
Mohan

 

[sravna]

Dear Sirs,

One sees perfection in everything of Lords creation and when one does not realise that truth, one tend to see imperfection everywhere. It is the ultimate realisation within that helps to understand and see hs perfection in everything.

Rgds,
Mohan

Dear Sir,

Real wisdom.

 

[sangom]

Sangom ji,

Thanks for the welcome.

Just used 'potent' for strong, to relate to the potent God.

If there is no WILL, then how can any GOD (or anyone) be a concious person? Then, GOD must be a O-O-O robot, just act as it encounters anything, anywhere, anypower, anytime! In the latter case, GOD can't distinguish between GOOD and EVIL?

Another question, what is Omniscience by the way? Does it include Conciousness, which includes (complete) knowledge, reasoning of good vs evil, the right decision to act on them, and the consequences of the decision?

Without the definitions of the terms - Omniscience, Concious, Entity, WILL, etc.., we cannot go further. We are using 'GRAND bogus' terms without understanding the basic functions.

P.S: who is that forum companion ?

Shri Govinda ji,

I agree that the qualification "omniscient" is not very apt and has possibly been applied because the same god or Brahman is imagined to pervade the entire universe at all times and hence, imagining an anthropomorphic quality for that god, it was thought that the god must be "knowing" all that is happening or has happened or will happen. I believe that god is likely to be a O-O force field much like the Universal Gravitational field.

 

[Govinda]

Mohan Sir,

One sees perfection in everything of Lords creation and when one does not realise that truth, one tend to see imperfection everywhere. It is the ultimate realisation within that helps to understand and see hs perfection in everything.

If that is the case, if everything is perfect, then why is there a need for GOD? What are you praying the GOD for?

Also, does Lord see perfection or imperfection in /His creation? If He too sees perfection, why is that nature changes, calamities happen, resources die off, humans/living beings suffer, kills/gets killed for food/desires, people suffer, die. etc.

Then, why is that the author/Sangom Ji et al, expecting a PERFECT GOD to banish the sufferings, punish the evil people etc.?

There are imperfections, but imagining them to be perfect, is 'illusion' and living life with that imagination is 'delusion'. If the national administrators thought so, there wouldn't be laws, police and court systems.

Thanks,
Govind.

 

[Govinda]

Sangom Ji,

I agree that the qualification "omniscient" is not very apt and has possibly been applied because the same god or Brahman is imagined to pervade the entire universe at all times and hence, imagining an anthropomorphic quality for that god, it was thought that the god must be "knowing" all that is happening or has happened or will happen

The Brahman of Advaita is 'Consciousness'. Without the Omniscient property, O-O god must be different idea than the Brahman. Now, which one is this thread about??

I believe that god is likely to be a O-O force field much like the Universal Gravitational field.

Then, that gravity like GOD has one faculty (consciousness) less than the us jIvAs. Then, who creates/controls this universe and the intelligent living beings?? How does this complete evolution of human (/lviing) beings - body, mind and its faculties - come up without an intelligent design?

Thanks,
Govinda.

 

[a-TB]

Dear Shri a-TB,

Maya is not the exact equivalent of devil but that which obscures brahman/true knowledge. Just like nirguna brahman, maya is beginningless and endless. The effect of maya is ignorance which is the cause of all evil but maya works in such a way that the ignorance in every jivatma eventually disappears and the jivatma gets out of the effect of maya and finally attains true knowledge.

Thanks, does Maya also satisfy the O-O-O attributes?

 

[sravna]

Thanks, does Maya also satisfy the O-O-O attributes?

No Sir it doesn't . It is a force that is wielded by brahman to create and operate the physical world.

 

[sangom]

No Sir it doesn't . It is a force that is wielded by brahman to create and operate the physical world.

Why should the brahman require a special force to create and operate the physical world? So, is brahman absent from the physical world, or is it incapable of creating and operating the physical world?

 

[sravna]

Why should the brahman require a special force to create and operate the physical world? So, is brahman absent from the physical world, or is it incapable of creating and operating the physical world?

Dear Shri Sangom,

Brahman as Saguna brahman is concerned with the activities of the physical world. Since both truth and untruth needs to operate in the physical world, the reality/illusion of maya is required.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Brahman as Saguna brahman is concerned with the activities of the physical world. Since both truth and untruth needs to operate in the physical world, the reality/illusion of maya is required.

Is Saguna brahman reality? Who creates it and when is its end?

 

[auh]

O-O-O for only 'good' god has logical issues but good god that 'wield' power of evil/maya (to use Mr Sravana's term) means there is NO paradox. The issue is you are not satisfied that such a god is whimsical and unpredictable. Too bad such a god cannot live up to your expectations As they say in starwars movies "May the force be with you".

Then, we need not have a separate term "god". Humans too create and destroy; exhibit goodness and evil. The only difference is the scale of operation.

 

[a-TB]

Then, we need not have a separate term "god". Humans too create and destroy; exhibit goodness and evil. The only difference is the scale of operation.

So what is the issue. Humans and god are same, only difference is in scale
Lots of humans are there, may be there is one god who does all the good and bad and have fun all the time.
Gods ways are mysterious I was told Lol

 

[sravna]

Is Saguna brahman reality? Who creates it and when is its end?

Brahman as sat chit ananda is nirguna brahman. Brahman as one who wields maya and concerned with the activities of physical world is saguna brahman.

The above is possible because brahman being omnipotent can be in different realities. As nirguna brahman he is the only and ultimate reality. It seems that as nirguna brahman the illusive power of maya is not felt since nirguna brahman is the ultimate reality. So to nirguna brahman he is the only reality and is just an experiencer of sat chit ananda.

It is my conjecture that the "substanace" of nirguna brahman may be responsible for projecting lesser realities/illusion ranging from saguna brahman to maya. It seems that the illusive power of maya proves to be a source of illusion outside the reality of nirguna brahman. The reality that saguna brahman along with maya is involved in which is the physical reality is not totally unreal but relatively real because truth is also is inherent in it due to it being brahman in essence.

 

[sangom]

Brahman as sat chit ananda is nirguna brahman. Brahman as one who wields maya and concerned with the activities of physical world is saguna brahman.

The above is possible because brahman being omnipotent can be in different realities. As nirguna brahman he is the only and ultimate reality. It seems that as nirguna brahman the illusive power of maya is not felt since nirguna brahman is the ultimate reality. So to nirguna brahman he is the only reality and is just an experiencer of sat chit ananda.

It is my conjecture that the "substanace" of nirguna brahman may be responsible for projecting lesser realities/illusion ranging from saguna brahman to maya. It seems that the illusive power of maya proves to be a source of illusion outside the reality of nirguna brahman. The reality that saguna brahman along with maya is involved in which is the physical reality is not totally unreal but relatively real because truth is also is inherent in it due to it being brahman in essence.

Will a "nirguna brahman" have any "substance" making it up? Further, a completely "nirguna brahman" if it projects lesser realities will cease to be nirguna and will have the guna of projecting such lesser realties/illusion. Then how do we go further?

 

[sravna]

Will a "nirguna brahman" have any "substance" making it up? Further, a completely "nirguna brahman" if it projects lesser realities will cease to be nirguna and will have the guna of projecting such lesser realties/illusion. Then how do we go further?

Dear Shri Sangom,

When Sankara decribed brahman as "nirguna" he definitely wouldn't have implied it as void. He also describes another side of brahman as "saguna".

Let us take the example of human being. Intelligence is one of the characteristic of a human. Now when he walk under the sun, shadow is cast. Casting of shadow is not because of the characteristic of human. It is the projection of the physical reality of human. Similarly the projection of saguna brahman and maya could happen. It doesn't take away the nirguna characteristic of the ultimate reality.

It is just that saguna brahman, and maya and all the lesser realities they cause are seen as separate by us. But the actual reality from the point of view of nirguna brahman is only one which is IT.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

When Sankara decribed brahman as "nirguna" he definitely wouldn't have implied it as void. He also describes another side of brahman as "saguna".

Let us take the example of human being. Intelligence is one of the characteristic of a human. Now when he walk under the sun, shadow is cast. Casting of shadow is not because of the characteristic of human. It is the projection of the physical reality of human. Similarly the projection of saguna brahman and maya could happen. It doesn't take away the nirguna characteristic of the ultimate reality.

It is just that saguna brahman, and maya and all the lesser realities they cause are seen as separate by us. But the actual reality from the point of view of nirguna brahman is only one which is IT.

I agree that being "void" is also a guna and so Shankara would not have (I am also not sure about the words he chose) described Nirguna brahman as "void". But, in your example, there is the sun and sunlight, to cause the shadow. What exactly causes the nirguna brahman to cast a shadow as saguna brahman? If so, is there something else than nirguna brahman as the ultimate reality?

 

[sravna]

I agree that being "void" is also a guna and so Shankara would not have (I am also not sure about the words he chose) described Nirguna brahman as "void". But, in your example, there is the sun and sunlight, to cause the shadow. What exactly causes the nirguna brahman to cast a shadow as saguna brahman? If so, is there something else than nirguna brahman as the ultimate reality?

Dear Shri Sangom,

Just as we understand casting of shadow is according to a physical law, we have to take the projections as a spiritual axiom.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Just as we understand casting of shadow is according to a physical law, we have to take the projections as a spiritual axiom.

While the use of the words like "spiritual" etc., make it sound mystical and hence beyond human scrutiny, the axiom can work only when there is some 'spiritual' entity which 'causes' that spiritual shadow/projection. Is it not? We then come to the position where brahman is not the ultimate reality.

 

[sravna]

While the use of the words like "spiritual" etc., make it sound mystical and hence beyond human scrutiny, the axiom can work only when there is some 'spiritual' entity which 'causes' that spiritual shadow/projection. Is it not? We then come to the position where brahman is not the ultimate reality.

Not necessarily Shri Sangom. In consistent with advaita, we can say that physical world is a world of many and so there is sun, sunlight , humans and so on. There is cause and effect relationship in the physical world because of the separation into "many".

A spiritual reality such as nirguna brahman is a single reality and at that reality there is no separation of cause from effect. So spiritual laws can act in ways different from physical laws. As long as the axiom doesn't contradict anything that is said in advaita and everything else can be explained with no contradictions I do not see any problem in using it as an axiom.