Nature of God[1]

7/28/2019 Nature of God[1]

1/7

The material contained in this newsletter/article is owned by ExoticIndiaArt Pvt Ltd.Reproduction of any part of the contents of this document, by any means, needs the prior permission of the owners.

Copyright 2010 ExoticIndiaArt

Newsletter Archives

The Nature of God: Is ThereContradiction in The Vedas?


2/7

Page 2

The Nature of God: Is There Contradiction inThe Vedas?

Article of the Month September 2010

One fine morning, a man walking outside a house heard a ladies' sound from within:"Son, please drink milk, it is very good for your health. Do not insist on eating thisfried potato, it is not good." In the evening, going by the same way he heard thewoman's voice: "Why are you insisting on milk? What is in it except water? Potatoesare ready, eat them." At another time he heard the woman saying: "You arecontinuously sitting and studying. If you continue like this you will get indigestion.Go out and play for sometime." Later he heard her say: "Why are you alwaysplaying here and there like an idle dog? Sit down and study. If you go outside again,

I will thrash you."

Hearing these contradictory statements, the man concluded that the woman wasvery impatient, quarrelsome or even mad. So much for the simple lady; but whatabout the Supreme Vedas?

Is there Contradiction in the Vedas?

The ultimate source for discerning the nature of God are the collection of scripturesknown as the Vedas. However, it is not easy to go through them. Why? Consider thefollowing example:

'God has hands and legs everywhere, eyes, ears, heads and faces everywhere; andenvelopes everything in this world.' (Shvetashvatara Upanishad 3.16 and BhagavadGita 13.13)

However, the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad says:

'God is neither gross nor subtle, neither short nor long, neither shadow nordarkness, neither air nor space. God is without eyes and ears or mouth. It is withouttaste or smell, speech or mind, without an exterior or an interior. It neither eatsanything, nor anything eats It.' (3.8.8)

The Isha Upanishad:

'God is without a body, sinless and without any wound.' (Mantra 8)And finally,

'God is Not this, Not this (neti neti). There is no other more appropriate descriptionof God.' (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 2.3.6)

We therefore see that the scriptures have described God in both ways with formand attributes (saguna; savishesha), and without any form or attributes (nirguna;nirvishesha).


3/7

Page 3

We know that each and every word of the Vedas is sacred. Nothing can be left out.How, then can we reconcile these apparently contradictory statements?

The correct thing obviously would be to study its context and then interpret. Forexample, in the illustration given above, after investigation it turned out that thewoman was dissuading a small child from eating fried potatoes and insisting on himto take milk, while a grown up child was being offered potatoes. One studious boywas being encouraged to go out and play, while an errant one was being forced tosit down and study. Interpreted in this contextual way, everything fell beautifullyinto place and there remained no contradiction at all.

Similarly, whether we have to accept God with or without form depends on who ismaking the choice. A sadhaka in the initial stages of sadhana should accept God withboth form and qualities, and then set out to perform ritual worship (puja) etc, asprescribed in the scriptures. Engaged in these auspicious activities he should thenslowly and steadily give up interest in karma and internalizing his sadhana, startcomprehending the formless, featureless God (Nirguna Brahman).

Doubt: Leaving the sadhana issue apart, if it is asked what actually is God, Nirgunaor Saguna, what would be your reply?

Resolution: Many people say that God is both Nirguna and Saguna. However, thisis erroneous, because to describe One God we cannot use contradictory statements.Therefore, we have to accept one of them as the actual truth and reconcile the otherwith it. Such a reconciliation is known in Vedanta as 'samanvaya.'

According to one school of thought, God is Saguna only, but the adjectives used todescribe His qualities and features are transcendental, not material (prakritik). TheNirguna statements are merely metaphorical, indicating that God is extremelysubtle.

In such a scheme, we can easily reconcile the adjectives like 'without smell' (a-gandham), or without taste (a-rasam), i.e. we can say that God has transcendentaltaste and smell.

However, what about the attributes 'not gross', 'not subtle', or 'not short' 'nor long'?If we say that these qualities refer to transcendental features, then we would haveto say that God is transcendentally both gross and subtle, short and long. Thusagain we are saddled with contradictory features in God.

Not only this, if we interpret 'without a body' as meaning that God does not have amaterial body but a transcendental one, then we will have to interpret 'withoutwound' as God having a transcendental wound; and 'sinless' would mean havingtranscendental sins. This obviously will not be acceptable to anybody, not even tothose who propound the above interpretation.

Doubt: No, no. We have to accept only those features which reflect on God's

benevolent nature, and discard the unpleasant qualities like 'without a wound' etc.

Resolution: We must realize that even though a wound is harmful for the onepossessing it, it is not so for the worm who finds shelter and nourishment in thewound. From the viewpoint of which creature are you calling a particular featureharmful or beneficent? We cannot discard any part of the Vedas. Not only this, thescriptures also say that even the negative, harmful aspects of the world are but Godonly:

'God has desire, anger and adharma' (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5)


4/7

Page 4

'Fishermen, gamblers, all are God' (Atharvaveda, quoted by Shri Shankaracharya inBrahma Sutras 2.3.43).

Hence, it is clear that such a narrowing down of the meaning is not sufficient at all.Therefore, now there is no other way other than reconciling the Saguna statementswith a Nirguna God; i.e. God is fundamentally Nirguna only, but due to 'upadhi',seems Saguna.

Doubt: What is the meaning of this term 'upadhi'? You have introduced it withoutdefining it first.

Resolution: 'Upadhi' is a precisely defined technical term in Vedanta. It will not bean exaggeration to say that if we grasp the essence of this one term, much of Vedanta will fall into place for us, and things will become much easier to understand.Consider the following example:

We go to somebody and ask him what is gold? In answer, he shows us a ring.Therefore, the ring becomes useful for understanding gold. Even though werecognize gold through the ring, the gold is totally independent of the ring; i.e., wecould have come to know what gold is through a ring, bracelet, or a necklace.

Whatever the shape may be, we will we get to know gold only. Even though the ringetc. is by itself not a part of gold, it helps us to recognize gold. The ring is called an'upadhi' for gold.

It is not necessary that an 'upadhi' be always be in contact with the object we wishto understand. It can remain away from it also. Consider the example of a Lingamade of crystal. Being by itself colorless, it is difficult to distinguish. However, if wekeep a red flower behind it we can distinguish it clearly. But, rather than its colorlessnature, we now see it as red. This red flower is an 'upadhi' for the Linga. Eventhough the Linga seems red due to its proximity with the red flower, in actuality it isnot red because it seems blue due to an upadhi of a blue flower. In this manner,because the same Linga seems to take on the different color of its various upadhis,the only possible conclusion is that it is by itself colorless. Even though the Linga isinvisible to the eye, we can come to this conclusion because of its upadhis. This isthe advantage of an upadhi. However, we need to be cautious on one pointregarding upadhis: Though due to an upadhi we could clearly see the colorlessLinga, even then, the upadhi showed it different from its true nature, i.e. it showedthe Linga to be red while it was colorless. Therefore, after having recognized anobject through its upadhi, to know its true nature we have to discard the upadhi.

This is the only faultless theory. God is without any form, otherwise how can It takeany form? This is what the scriptures declare again and again. The Brahma Sutra,the ultimate authority on Vedanta composed by sage Vyasa, says:

'Arupa-vat eva hi tat pradhanatvat' (Brahma Sutras 3.2.14): God is formlessbecause this is the primary meaning of the Vedas.

What then is the significance of the statements in Shruti (Vedas), where God isdescribed as formless and without any qualities? The next sutra gives the answer:

'Prakasha-vat cha a-vaiyyarthyat' (3.2.15): God assumes forms various forms likelight, because no statement in the scriptures is without significance.

Shankaracharya's commentary on the above sutra says: 'God may be said to takevarious forms due to Its contact with various upadhis, just as the light of the sun,even though it pervades all space, is said to become straight or curved when itcomes into contact with curved or straight things. But this does not mean that the


5/7

Page 5

character, which appears to belong to God on account of these upadhis, is Its truenature. So long as avidya (ignorance) exists, there exist the upadhis and the variousforms ascribed to God, allowing room for the worship of Saguna Brahman.'

Doubt: So the scriptures give sanction to both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman?

Resolution: Yes. Not only that, the Prashna Upanishad names them as Para(Higher) Brahman and Apara (Lower) Brahman Prashna Upanishad 5.2

Nirguna God is Para Brahman and Saguna is Apara Brahman. Negating the transient,ever-changing world, what is described in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad as "NetiNeti Not This, Not This", is the Nirguna Brahman. The God which is described inthe terms of the world of names and forms is Saguna Brahman.

Doubt: If you speak thus, will it not contradict the scriptures, which have consensusin declaring that God is one and one only?

Resolution: Not at all. God is one only and that is Para Brahman. Those who cannotknow this accept the God defined by various upadhis and perform karmas andworship. Para Brahman is knowable, and Apara Brahman is attainable (Param

gyatavyam, Aparam prapatavyam) Shri Shankaracharya's commentary on theKatha Upanishad (1.2.16)

However way God is described, it is only on account of some upadhi. In its truenature God is indescribable. That is why, however way we describe It, Shruti calls it"Neti Neti".

Doubt: If God is neither this nor that, then is God 'Nothing' (Shunya)?

Resolution: No. Whatever we see in front of us has come from God. How then canit be Shunya? God is. However being essentially Nirguna, nothing can be explainedabout It. Even then, the compassionate Vedas decide to explain God to us.Therefore, they describe God as having contradictory qualities:'God moves not. God is swifter than the mind. Standing still It surpasses otherrunners'. (Isha Upanishad 4)

'It moves, It does not move. It is far, It is near'. (Isha Upanishad 5)'God is very far, God is very near'. (Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.7)

'God walks and holds without hands or legs, It sees without eyes and hears withoutears'. (Shvetashvatara Upanishad 3.19)

'God is light (tejomaya), God is without light (a-tejomaya). God has desire(kamamaya), God is without desire (a-kamamaya). God has anger (krodhamaya),God does not have anger (a-krodhamaya). God has dharma (dharmamaya), Goddoes not have dharma (a-dharmamaya).' (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5).

Here we see that these are not different mantras giving contradictory versions, butsame mantras presenting apparently conflicting perceptions of God. Obviously thenthere has to be a purpose behind these strange statements. Take the example of acolorless crystal. Sometimes it is red and sometimes it is not. At other times it isblue, and at others it is not blue. From theses descriptions it is clear that the crystalis neither red nor blue, rather, it seems to take on the color of the upadhi. In itself itis colorless.

Thus fundamentally God is One and upadhi-less. When It assumes the form of thegods (Indra etc), it has a lustrous body made up of light, when It takes on the form


6/7

Page 6

of lower creatures like animals etc, it is said to have dark forms, lacking in light. Godis desireful when associated with the upadhi of those like us bound by desire. Whenby performing sadhana we become free from kama God is called a-kamamaya.When our desires are thwarted, we become angry, and when we are peaceful, a-krodhamaya. Similarly, God seems dharmamaya and a-dharmamaya on account of the various creatures engaged in dharma or dharma.

God does not move. It is both here and there (everywhere). However, when joinedwith the upadhi of this moving world, it seems endowed with movement. God is farfrom those who do not know It; but is near for those who do know It.

However, in its fundamental form (svarupa), God is neither angry nor wrathless. Itis "Neti Neti", - Not This, Not This. Actually, Neti Neti is the negation of all upadhis inGod.

Doubt: How is it possible for God to be totally Nirguna? This world is full of variousnames and forms, with different qualities and features, how can such a world comefrom Someone who has no features?

Resolution: God is Nirguna exactly because It is the root cause of this diverse

world. All features can come only from that which is Itself featureless. Light, thoughit consists of all colors is by itself colorless. Clay, which can take any shape, is byitself shapeless. It is by association with the various colors and shapes that they aresaid to possess those qualities. Any quality comes only through the association withupadhis.

Doubt: Caught you! By accepting the presence of upadhis which are associated withGod, you are propounding duality; i.e. there are two things - God and upadhi. Thisclearly contradicts your principle that 'everything is God' (sarvam khalu idamBrahman, Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1)

Resolution: No, on the contrary, the whole purpose of this analysis is to show howeverything in this world is God.

At one level we have considered this world to be an upadhi for God. At another wehave already seen that this world is but God only, because of the latter being thematerial cause of the former. Upadhi means something different from God.However, we already know that there is nothing different from It. Therefore, how toreconcile these two statements?

Fundamentally, everything being God only, there can be no upadhi different from It.Actually, the shape of an object is also fundamentally the cause only. The shape of apot is also clay only. What else can it be? Shankaracharya Ji says: 'the shape of theeffect too is fundamentally nothing but the cause itself' karya-akaar api karanasyaatmabhuta eva (Commentary on the Brahma Sutras, 2.1.18)

Put thus, even the shape of a thing cannot fundamentally become an upadhi for

God. There cannot be any upadhi for the One and Only God without a second.Therefore, when there is no upadhi, then God has no feature whatsoever. Hence, inIts true nature, God is Nirguna and only Nirguna. However, even though God has nofeatures, It is there. Why? Because it is the cause of this world, and an effect cannever exist without its cause inhering in it. A pot cannot exist without clay.Fundamentally, a pot is nothing but clay only.


7/7

Page 7

References and Further Reading:

Baba, Bhole. Shri Shankaracharya's Commentary on the Brahma Sutras withthe Sub-Commentary 'Ratnaprabha' (Text and Hindi Translation), Varanasi,2006.

Bharati, Swami Paramananda. Foundations of Dharma. Bangalore 2008. Bharati, Swami Paramananda. Lectures on Vedanta (80 MP3 Files). Bharati, Swami Paramananda. Vedanta Prabodh:. Varanasi, 2010. Date, V.H. Upanisads Retold (2 Volumes) New Delhi, 1999. Goyandka, Shri Harikrishnadas. Translation of Shankaracharya's Commentary

on the Eleven Upanishads (Hindi): Gorakhpur, 2006. Grimes, John. A Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy Varanasi, 2009. Gupta Som Raj. Upanisads with the Commentary of Sankaracarya, Five

Volumes. Delhi Jacob, G.A. A Concordance to the Principal Upanisads and Bhagavadgita.

Delhi, 1999 Ranganathananda. Swami. The Message of the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad

Mayawati, 2005

Sharma, Prof. Ram Murti. Encyclopaedia of Vedanta: New Delhi, 2002. Sivananda, Swami. Yoga Vedanta Dictionary Rishikesh, 2010.

This article is based almost entirely on the teachings of Param Pujya SwamiParamanand Bharati Ji. However, any error is entirely the author's own.

This Article by Nitin Kumar

We hope you have enjoyed reading the article. Any comments you may have will begreatly appreciated. Please send your feedback to [email protected].

Copyright 2010, ExoticIndiaArt

Nature of God[1]

Documents

Transcript of Nature of God[1]