• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Pantheists

JustGeorge

Not As Much Fun As I Look
Staff member
Premium Member
What is your opinion of praying to Brahman and trying to form a relationship with it/him?

In general, Brahman isn't a God, so to speak, its a... condition? I don't really have the language to explain what I mean(hate when that happens).

I think it would be more fruitful to try to relate to Brahman through a deity, or to attempt to realize the Brahman within(and everywhere else).
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
In general, Brahman isn't a God, so to speak, its a... condition? I don't really have the language to explain what I mean(hate when that happens).

I think it would be more fruitful to try to relate to Brahman through a deity, or to attempt to realize the Brahman within(and everywhere else).
I like the phraseology "We are That" and/or "I am That", with "That" referring to Brahman.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
In general, Brahman isn't a God, so to speak, its a... condition? I don't really have the language to explain what I mean(hate when that happens).

I think it would be more fruitful to try to relate to Brahman through a deity, or to attempt to realize the Brahman within(and everywhere else).
I think i understand what you’re saying. Brahman is more of an unconscious ‘thing’ than a personality/mind. Which confuses me as Brahman is often described as dreaming or putting on a play. I suppose those could be metaphors but are there no hindus that take that literally?
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
In general, Brahman isn't a God, so to speak, its a... condition? I don't really have the language to explain what I mean(hate when that happens).

I think it would be more fruitful to try to relate to Brahman through a deity, or to attempt to realize the Brahman within(and everywhere else).
Hasn’t Krishna sometimes been said to be identical with Brahman? I always thought that didn’t make sense because I always assumed Krishna was a physical vessel of Vishnu, and Vishnu is an aspect of Brahman?
 

JustGeorge

Not As Much Fun As I Look
Staff member
Premium Member
I think i understand what you’re saying. Brahman is more of an unconscious ‘thing’ than a personality/mind. Which confuses me as Brahman is often described as dreaming or putting on a play. I suppose those could be metaphors but are there no hindus that take that literally?

We are the characters, and reflect Brahman; are Brahman. I'm playing the character of George, and my house is my setting(for a simple example). But, there are myriads of people... and settings... and not just here, on earth, but other places, too..

Can you elaborate by what you mean 'take it literally'? I'm having a hard time picturing(I think I'm having a slow brain day lol)

Hasn’t Krishna sometimes been said to be identical with Brahman? I always thought that didn’t make sense because I always assumed Krishna was a physical vessel of Vishnu, and Vishnu is an aspect of Brahman?
Vaishnaivas believe him to be identical with Brahman. Saivas believe Shiva to be. A Shakta believe their favored form of Devi to be.

For the purpose of Bhakti, any person's preferred ideal of God(I believe its called Ishvara) can be viewed as Brahman, as unfettered devotion to that ideal(regardless of which one is chose) can lead to moksha.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
We are the characters, and reflect Brahman; are Brahman. I'm playing the character of George, and my house is my setting(for a simple example). But, there are myriads of people... and settings... and not just here, on earth, but other places, too..

Can you elaborate by what you mean 'take it literally'? I'm having a hard time picturing(I think I'm having a slow brain day lol)

I guess I always pictured that while all individual things, characters, and settings are “reflections” of Brahman, they are also illusion and there is no separation between these things. But the sum of all parts as One Thing is the absolute Brahman and…

my point is that I always imagined that this absolute Brahman might have an awareness of its own, while simultaneously experiencing this illusion of separation.

I hope I explained that decently lol, this is a subject matter that doesn’t have very detailed language so it’s not your brain it is all just difficult to put into words.


Vaishnaivas believe him to be identical with Brahman. Saivas believe Shiva to be. A Shakta believe their favored form of Devi to be.

For the purpose of Bhakti, any person's preferred ideal of God(I believe its called Ishvara) can be viewed as Brahman, as unfettered devotion to that ideal(regardless of which one is chose) can lead to moksha.
Could you explain what it means that these deities are identical with Brahman? Aren’t gods also supposed to be characters or aspects?
 

JustGeorge

Not As Much Fun As I Look
Staff member
Premium Member
I guess I always pictured that while all individual things, characters, and settings are “reflections” of Brahman, they are also illusion and there is no separation between these things. But the sum of all parts as One Thing is the absolute Brahman and…

my point is that I always imagined that this absolute Brahman might have an awareness of its own, while simultaneously experiencing this illusion of separation.

I hope I explained that decently lol, this is a subject matter that doesn’t have very detailed language so it’s not your brain it is all just difficult to put into words.

You did better with it than I could have! :D

I suspect Brahman is aware and unaware. Aware through us, yet unaware, detached.

Could you explain what it means that these deities are identical with Brahman? Aren’t gods also supposed to be characters or aspects?
Basically put, a person can perceive their ideal as Brahman. A person's brain cannot normally perceive Brahman(the finite cannot comprehend the infinite), but they can perceive of their favored deity. Worshipping that ideal can lead to achieving union with Brahman.

(But this is the way of Bhakti; there are other ways.)
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
You did better with it than I could have! :D

I suspect Brahman is aware and unaware. Aware through us, yet unaware, detached.


Basically put, a person can perceive their ideal as Brahman. A person's brain cannot normally perceive Brahman(the finite cannot comprehend the infinite), but they can perceive of their favored deity. Worshipping that ideal can lead to achieving union with Brahman.

(But this is the way of Bhakti; there are other ways.)
Thank you for the information! It all makes sense to me

I really like the bhakti approach
 

Stonetree

Model Member
Premium Member
In general, Brahman isn't a God, so to speak, its a... condition? I don't really have the language to explain what I mean(hate when that happens).

I think it would be more fruitful to try to relate to Brahman through a deity, or to attempt to realize the Brahman within(and everywhere else).
Is the word "Goodness" applicable..?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What is your opinion of praying to Brahman and trying to form a relationship with it/him?
Brahman isn't an entity or a thing. Praying to Brahman would be like praying to the inverse square law or to spacetime.
Brahman has no qualities, it's literally ineffable, so even talking about it is an exercise in futility -- not that that ever stopped Hindus from making the attempt. ;)

A "relationship" with Brahman; with "isness"/existence/awareness, is an interesting idea, like a 'relationship' with gravity or time.
Generally, Hindus choose aspects to relate to; actual, tangible things, entities or qualities.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think i understand what you’re saying. Brahman is more of an unconscious ‘thing’ than a personality/mind. Which confuses me as Brahman is often described as dreaming or putting on a play. I suppose those could be metaphors but are there no hindus that take that literally?
Brahman has no qualities. It cannot be described. Even the analogy of the blank screen upon which reality is projected doesn't do the concept justice.
Brahman can only be experienced or merged with.
 

JustGeorge

Not As Much Fun As I Look
Staff member
Premium Member
Goodness is a concept, a thing, a quality. Brahman has none of these things.

I have read about 'Brahman without attributes' and 'Brahman with attributes'(don't ask me where, I can hardly remember my own age let alone where I read things). What is meant by Brahman with attributes?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Hasn’t Krishna sometimes been said to be identical with Brahman? I always thought that didn’t make sense because I always assumed Krishna was a physical vessel of Vishnu, and Vishnu is an aspect of Brahman?
All things, concepts, and personages are both aspects of and the entirety of Brahman.
Krishna says in the Gita that it matters not what God you pray to, it is he that answers. "He" is understood by Vaishnavas to be the actual entity Vishnu. Vedantists, on the other hand, look beyond individual conceptions of divinity; as mere representations of concepts of Ultimate Reality.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have read about 'Brahman without attributes' and 'Brahman with attributes'(don't ask me where, I can hardly remember my own age let alone where I read things). What is meant by Brahman-with-attributes?
It is a Brahman-with-attributes, with "gunas," attached to it, to render it a thing that can be spoken of. Actual, "nirguna" Brahman is beyond language and can only be experienced by merging with it.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
What is meant by Brahman with attributes?
Idea of Brahman which has been personalized.
However, in my view, even 'nirguna' Brahman, 'what exists', physical energy, does have some intrinsic 'gunas'. 1. It is eternal, 2. It fluctuates all the time in Feynman's way, 3. It can take any form, 4. It does not have preferences, etc.

iu

For the purpose of Bhakti, any person's preferred ideal of God (I believe its called Ishvara) can be viewed as Brahman, as unfettered devotion to that ideal (regardless of which one is chose) can lead to moksha.
Some of these 'Ishvaras' are quite parochial. They put people in fetters. 'You should worship only me', 'Deliverance is only through me', etc. Then they make false promises. 'After death, I will raise you and you will live eternally in Switzerland'. They defeat the idea of Brahman.
 
Last edited:

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I imagine that it would be more of a force than it would a person. That it would be an anthropomorphic being with humanesque ego and emotion doesn't make sense to me.
 

The Sum of Awe

Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
I imagine that it would be more of a force than it would a person. That it would be an anthropomorphic being with humanesque ego and emotion doesn't make sense to me.
I wasn't implying that the universe has anthropomorphic ego or emotion, which is why I said 'consciousness' is a heavy word in my OP. I have trouble explaining what I mean, I guess "has an intention for its own existence and the shapes it takes". Then again 'wanting' things is human as well, isn't it... A universe with an artistic choice to experience life through all of these emotional shapes we call beings? The way I often fantasize it is God being lonely or bored in the beginning (which are both human things, I understand) and deciding to separate itself into multiple identities. Or perhaps God's mind is just so complex that it couldn't help but perceive itself through multiple minds?

"Am I just paranoid or am I just stoned"
 
Top