Brahm has a Form

[kaisersose]

 

1. Why does it need to be any of those? Could the form of Brahman not be unique to Brahman? Why must the form of Brahman conform to a specific, known, racial type?

 

Very good. It does not have to. Hence the question, to to know exactly what Ranjeet is talking about. He has been posting a lot on the topic with almost nothing about the form itself.

 

 

2. Brahman is ageless. As far as what age Brahman *appears* to be, I'm not aware of any source specifically quantifying this.

 

The age is a factor if Ranjeet says Brahman has a human form ( Krishna of the Yadavas). Krishna was an infant, a todder, an adolescent & an adult at different points of time. Naturally then, we have to pick one for the Eternal Brahman. Or else, one has to take the position that Brahman appears differently to different people - rejecting the concept of an original, authentic form - which is very Advaitic.

 

Or one can say the Krishna of the Yadavas was an avatar and his form is not the original form of Brahman.

 

 

3. Why not? Why should a personal God be devoid of senses? Why should the experience of senses and sense objects be absent in the spiritual realm?

 

Senses as we know them are limited in their capacities run orthogonal to the concept of an all-knowing, all-pervasive, eternal Brahman. For instance, human eyes cannot see everything around them at the same time. They have eyelids for protection, etc., which make no sense when attributed to a Supreme Brahman. This is putting limits to a limitless entity. And then there is a nose for breathing, etc., which implies the existence of a respiratory system with all the auxillaries.

 

Again, I have to repeat that all this is relevant only if a human form is assigned to Brahman (as should be clear from my earlier post).

 

 

4. Perhaps, but how many blue, four-armed people do you see walking around in India? Or anywhere else, for that matter? If the form of Brahman was invented by human imagination, wouldn't it be logical to presuppose that Brahman was given the form of a two-armed, brown-skinned, Indian male (i.e. the form of the people who supposedly invented Brahman's form)?

 

The blue color, multiple arms and eyes are merely extensions to the standard human form. It is easy and natural for a poet to extend/improve on the template to illustrate a difference.

 

The basic question remains. We have arms, eyes, skin - all for specific functions. Why does the Supreme Brahman have/need any of these? I do not have an alternate theory supporting a formless Brahman. It is just a natural line of questioning when you hear the Gaudiya claim that Krishna came down in his original form thus implying that the eternal form of Brahman is a South Asian human male - or the general claim the Supreme Brahman has an "all-attractive" form with human like arms and eyes.

 

The interesting point is, if I were tasked to create a convincing form for a God (or THE God), the human form is the best template I can think of. Start with the human form and then make extensions, which is what most cultures have done (except when they picked other forms like monkeys, elephants, etc). Make the eyes bigger, add extra eyes, extra arms, vary the body size, adjust skin color, draw a halo, etc.

 

Cheers

[Beggar]

 

Look at the guy on the extreme right, just below brain-head. The guy with the saffron watch-cap. Is that brahmacari in Iskcon or the Gaudiya Math?

[bhaktajan]

I KNOW! I KNOW!

 

I don't know where he came from --I noticed it after posting it!

 

To some one who has gotten acclimated to seeing devotees --it does appear to be a brahmacari with those ubiquitous (saffron colored) wool hats.

 

Just see!

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by kaisersose

"extensions to the standard human form."

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

"Form follows function"

 

..........................................

All machines are extention of 'human' existance.

 

Try studying the lessons of mechanical engineering --to learn limits of design.

 

...................................................

At what point in physics & metaphysics --do the laws of known phenomenom cease to operate?

 

All techno logical advancements have been laying under our collective noses since time immemorial --until the mother of invention bores fruit from the seed of necessity.

 

[Why is "necessity" destined to be fullfilled?

What is to be profitted if the dust is tidied-up for guests?

What is to be lost if the dust is not tidied-up for guests?]

[raghu]

 

The age is a factor if Ranjeet says Brahman has a human form ( Krishna of the Yadavas).

 

If you mean chronologic age, then I must disagree. If you are referring to apparent age, then that is a different matter.

 

 

Krishna was an infant, a todder, an adolescent & an adult at different points of time. Naturally then, we have to pick one for the Eternal Brahman. Or else, one has to take the position that Brahman appears differently to different people - rejecting the concept of an original, authentic form - which is very Advaitic.

 

The last sentence does not logically follow from the premise established by the first two. Brahman can have an original form and still appear in different forms in different times and to different people. To use a crude analogy, if I wear dhoti to the temple, a business suit to work, and blue jeans while at home, this does not change the fact that on any given day my body has an original form of sorts that always exists regardless of how I appear before my fellow human beings.

 

 

Or one can say the Krishna of the Yadavas was an avatar and his form is not the original form of Brahman.

 

Excepting the Gaudiyas, I do not think most Vaishnavas will take issue with the above statement.

 

 

Senses as we know them are limited in their capacities

 

The key phrase is "as we know them." Senses *as we know them* are limited in their capacities. But if we are discussing a subject matter that is beyond the immediate purview of the senses, we must logically consider the possibility that it may follow different laws that do not apply to our immediate universe.

 

Even in ordinary science, we find that old paradigms governing how we think the universe operates get thrown out or revised in light of new evidence. There was a time when rational human beings confidently asserted that flight was not possible. Then when that was disproven, they used to think that one could not break the sound barrier. And so on, and so on.

 

The point here being only that we don't know as much as we think we do, and if we are ready to start talking about something that is beyond our present conception, then we should be prepared to invoke new principles describing its reality. Otherwise, no point in even talking about it if we just assume that everything we know currently represents the limit of reality.

 

 

run orthogonal to the concept of an all-knowing, all-pervasive, eternal Brahman. For instance, human eyes cannot see everything around them at the same time. They have eyelids for protection, etc., which make no sense when attributed to a Supreme Brahman. This is putting limits to a limitless entity. And then there is a nose for breathing, etc., which implies the existence of a respiratory system with all the auxillaries.

 

I don't know why the omnipotent Brahman has eyelids and a nose. But then again, I don't know why humans have an appendix or pubic hair. These things serve no useful recognizable function, but they don't change the fact that we have them. If ordinary creatures have parts that we cannot readily identify the function of, it is surely not beyond the realm of reason to accept that Brahman can have form and attributes which we cannot readily explain.

 

We think of eyelids as protection for our eyes, and a respiratory system as a means to acquire oxygen for metabolism. Naturally the tendency is to assume that these things would serve a similar function in Brahman and then wonder why based on our own, reductionist mode of thinking. It all gets back to getting away from the myopic thinking that is based on our limited experience of existence. If one cannot even dare to do it, then it is pointless to even talk about such abstract, supra-mundane concepts.

 

 

The blue color, multiple arms and eyes are merely extensions to the standard human form. It is easy and natural for a poet to extend/improve on the template to illustrate a difference.

 

Possible, but not logical based on the premise that human beings invented God in their own image. By this theory, one would expect a man-made God to look more like man. Or at least like some other creature within mankind's experience. Or a combination of man and some other known creature. But "blueness" and having four arms are themselves outside of man's experience when it comes to human form. That does not necessarily make them real, mind you. Just that it is less likely to invoke such features when one is starting with one's own body as a template to design a deity.

 

 

It is just a natural line of questioning when you hear the Gaudiya claim that Krishna came down in his original form thus implying that the eternal form of Brahman is a South Asian human male

 

I wouldn't say that Krishna's form is that of a "South Asian" human male. What specifically, is "South Asian" about Krishna's form as we customarily know it? Are South Asians blue in complexion?

 

 

The interesting point is, if I were tasked to create a convincing form for a God (or THE God), the human form is the best template I can think of. Start with the human form and then make extensions, which is what most cultures have done (except when they picked other forms like monkeys, elephants, etc). Make the eyes bigger, add extra eyes, extra arms, vary the body size, adjust skin color, draw a halo, etc.

 

Cheers

 

The same logic can apply to creating a formless God as well. After all, if one is convinced based on his own experience that form is limiting and God is unlimited, then one will naturally assume that God is formless and create a fictional God without form. Formlessness by itself does not imply unauthoredness by man. Several major religions such as Judaism and Islam conceive of God as either formless or having inconceivable form, which supports the point of view that one can make up a formless god just as easily as a god with human form.

[ranjeetmore]

 

The question was, what is this form? Is it a human form or some other known shape or is it unknown?

 

Can you please answer that?

 

Thanks

 

This discussion is based on your speculation.

 

Anyway,i'll try to address it in a new thread.

 

SIGH.

[gourshyam]

This is something to be realized.

 

"Since you are copy-pasting volumes on the topic, a simple description of this form would be of help. "

 

It requires some sadhana to be able to accept such high truths.

Without sadhana, it is just a speculation and endless debate.

[gourshyam]

We need to understand that human beings are modeled after God and not the other way round.

So, all human beings, devi-devatas their bodies are modeled after God.

But those bodies still aren't as perfect as the bodies of the nitya siddha parshads or of Vishnu forms.

It all depends upon good fortune to be able to understand it even a bit.

[kaisersose]

 

This discussion is based on your speculation.

 

Anyway,i'll try to address it in a new thread.

 

SIGH.

 

Wonderful,

 

I can wait.

 

Cheers