The 'Male' concept of God

[sarang]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

All temples had paintings in the prahra walls and the ceilings. They have been blackened with soot, plastered and whitewashed. The narrow praharam in bruhadishwara temple in tanjore, paintings are still visible, and are being restored. Ajanta paintings!

Where were all these artists?

If only artist of yesteryears had drawn Goddesses like these..It would have been so much nicer.

 

[vgane]

All temples had paintings in the prahra walls and the ceilings. They have been blackened with soot, plastered and whitewashed. The narrow praharam in bruhadishwara temple in tanjore, paintings are still visible, and are being restored. Ajanta paintings!

As early as 9th century you had temple paintings..May be much earlier too! We have lost many of our treasures due to ignorance and poor maintenance & Moghul invasions (the latter is more in the North)

Rare Chola paintings found in Tiruvottiyur temple - The Hindu

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Sangom,

The male or the female is only the form. Something omnipotent can take any form and so this talk of male God being superior is not valid. It is only that we worship god in the form we prefer. Some may prefer Devi while others may prefer Vishnu. But it is the same being we are worshiping.

Re. the portion highlighted — How are you so sure that "it is the same being"? Can we be sure about that being being "a being" (A living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently) and also prove conclusively that it can be nothing else? Then is not the concept of Nirguna brahman false?

 

[sravna]

Re. the portion highlighted — How are you so sure that "it is the same being"? Can we be sure about that being being "a being" (A living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently) and also prove conclusively that it can be nothing else? Then is not the concept of Nirguna brahman false?

I do not understand what you say. Can you be more clear?

 

[sangom]

I do not understand what you say. Can you be more clear?

Dear Shri Sravna,

You had written (Post # 25) as under:—

"The male or the female is only the form. Something omnipotent can take any form and so this talk of male God being superior is not valid. It is only that we worship god in the form we prefer. Some may prefer Devi while others may prefer Vishnu. But it is the same being we are worshiping."

My comments were in regard to the portion " it is the same being we are worshiping." in the last sentence in your above-cited post.

My question (or, rather, doubt) is — how can you or anyone else be so sure that "it is the same being" that is worshipped whether as a male god or as a female goddess? If that god can be male or female according to one's desire, then it has necessarily to be either a male or a female which changes its make-up from male to female or vice versa, according as a devotee wants the god to appear as female or male. In either case the god has to be a "being" in the sense of 'A living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently', here, in changing its sexual appearance. So, I asked whether this does not flatly negate the Nirguna Brahman concept which will not have any characteristics including sex, nor will be able to act out of its own discretion or choice.

Hope this is clear now.

 

[Nara]

.... Something omnipotent can take any form and so this talk of male God being superior is not valid. .

sravna, is it your view that the omnipotent, -- by omnipotent I think you mean nirguna brahman, if not let me know -- can take any form?

 

[v arun kumar]

Dear Sravna,

May be!LOL

But by the time I was 10..I used to tell my mum that Lord Shiva is so handsome and looks macho etc.

I found Lord Rama too calm for my liking.

Lord Vishnu looked to sweet in most pics.

Lord Muruga always looked like a young boy types.

So Lord Shiva was the hero types..with sharp looks.

Most Lord Shiva paintings depicted a very good looking person who had sharp and strong features.

So I guess it was the artist impression that made me prefer the male aspect of God.

Most artist do not paint very beautiful pic of Goddesses..most of the paintings we see were rather homely looking Goddesses.

May be if any artist had painted a more beautiful and sexier Goddess I would have preferred the female concept.

For example if anyone had painted Goddess Kali like this..surely Kali would have been my favorite.

Check this out!

LOL looks more like Bipasha Basu than some goddess, and its a shame that you did not even care to write about Lord Krishna the universal lover !!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Nirguna brahman does not act. Its projection or form is saguna brahman. I think there is no one form or name for saguna brahman. This is what I meant.

Shri Nara, hope the above answers your query too.

 

[Nara]

...Nirguna brahman does not act. Its projection or form is saguna brahman. I think there is no one form or name for saguna brahman. This is what I meant.

Shri Nara, hope the above answers your query too.

So, the Nirguna brahman projects a form without acting, right? Where does the projection fall to take a form? It is not the same as the sound of a tree falling in a forest, isnt'?

 

[biswa]

LOL looks more like Bipasha Basu than some goddess, and its a shame that you did not even care to write about Lord Krishna the universal lover !!

I thought Bipasha Basu was a goddess! I think in Renukaji's imagination Lord Krishna looks somewhat like Shahrukh Khan.

 

[sravna]

So, the Nirguna brahman projects a form without acting, right? Where does the projection fall to take a form? It is not the same as the sound of a tree falling in a forest, isnt'?

Just as the nirguna brahman exists as a reality and also as do the physical world and the jivas, I think so would saguna brahman exist as a reality.

 

[Nara]

Just as the nirguna brahman exists as a reality and also as do the physical world and the jivas, I think so would saguna brahman exist as a reality.

Do you have a name for this interpretation?

 

[sravna]

Do you have a name for this interpretation?

Dear Shri Nara,

What is it that you do not understand in the interpretation?

 

[Nara]

sravna, what you are saying is so not advaita and I am not aware of any other school of vedanta that is consistent with your view, so I was just wondering...

 

[sravna]

sravna, what you are saying is so not advaita and I am not aware of any other school of vedanta that is consistent with your view, so I was just wondering...

Shri Nara,

Why is it not consistent with advaita? All are realities according to advaita though the reality of nirguna brahman only is absolute.

 

[Nara]

Shri Nara,

Why is it not consistent with advaita? All are realities according to advaita though the reality of nirguna brahman only is absolute.

Well sravna, the advaita I am familiar asserts that Brahman is the only reality and that Brahman is pure consciousness devoid of any form or attribute whatever. You are suggesting that this nirguna brahman projects another reality -- this is anathema to the advaitam I am familiar with.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Nara,

Something need not necessarily be caused by the action of something. Action and thoughts are real only within the dimensions of space and time. Outside that, why do you think effects cannot occur even without any action?

 

[Nara]

Something need not necessarily be caused by the action of something. Action and thoughts are real only within the dimensions of space and time. Outside that, why do you think effects cannot occur even without any action?

I am not thinking any of this sravna, all I was saying is your views are quite novel and different from traditional advaitam that I am familiar with, that is all.... you can probably call your theories dual-reality/miThuna satyam/dvitva satyam or something like that!

 

[sravna]

I am not thinking any of this sravna, all I was saying is your views are quite novel and different from traditional advaitam that I am familiar with, that is all.... you can probably call your theories dual-reality/miThuna satyam/dvitva satyam or something like that!

Dear Shri Nara,

It is because you guys raise novel questions, it requires novel answers. Thanks for the suggestion anyway.

 

[renuka]

LOL looks more like Bipasha Basu than some goddess, and its a shame that you did not even care to write about Lord Krishna the universal lover !!

Ok since you want to know about Lord Krishna..let me start.

It took me a while to actually get into Krishna mode..It was my elder brother who liked Lord Krishna since he was a kid.

I started liking the image of Lord Krishna after my dad bought ISCKON books and paintings where a good looking Krishna was depicted.

ISCKON paintings show a handsome fit and strong Krishna..then I started liking Krishna too along with Shiva.

Becos of that I started reading Geeta etc and rest is history.

 

[renuka]

Dear Shri Nara,

Something need not necessarily be caused by the action of something. Action and thoughts are real only within the dimensions of space and time. Outside that, why do you think effects cannot occur even without any action?

Dear Sravna,

Lord Krishna says in Geeta that even though He is not bound by action and there is no reason for Him to perform action in the 3 worlds but yet He preforms actions.

Sravna..tell me now..how does you statement hold good?

God Himself says that He performs actions but here you say that effects can occur without action??

The word effect itself means there is an underlying causative factor!

 

[renuka]

i thought bipasha basu was a goddess! I think in renukaji's imagination lord krishna looks somewhat like shahrukh khan.

lol!

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Lord Krishna says in Geeta that even though He is not bound by action and there is no reason for Him to perform action in the 3 worlds but yet He preforms actions.

Sravna..tell me now..how does you statement hold good?

God Himself says that He performs actions but here you say that effects can occur without action??

The word effect itself means there is an underlying causative factor!

Dear Renuka,

I am talking of nirguna brahman and not Saguna brahman. Saguna brahman does act such as creating, sustaining and destroying the world.

When I said effect, I meant something automatically emanates. That I think would happen when something is purely spiritual because a purely spiritual thing does not act or think as it is unchanging in every way.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Nara,

Something need not necessarily be caused by the action of something. Action and thoughts are real only within the dimensions of space and time. Outside that, why do you think effects cannot occur even without any action?

Dear Shri Sravna,

I do not think the above can be true. Even so, since your premises seem to be based upon our scriptures, can you cite any scriptural support for the above proposition of yours?

AFA my knowledge goes even the Rishi who composed the Nasadiya Sukta, humbly admits that "the author or overseer - of all this - may or may not know. But even he (that Rishi) does not venture to say that "effects cannot occur without cause".

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

I am talking of nirguna brahman and not Saguna brahman. Saguna brahman does act such as creating, sustaining and destroying the world.

When I said effect, I meant something automatically emanates. That I think would happen when something is purely spiritual because a purely spiritual thing does not act or think as it is unchanging in every way.

Frankly speaking Sravna..when its about Nirguna Brahman..I have stopped speculating..cos I feel that is totally the Unknown.

It's only mental gymnastics if anyone tries to even wonder about Nirguna Brahman.