I know that Brahma, Vishnu, and Maheshwar are representations of creation, protection, and destruction cycles. Do they really exist as entities with a specific appearance?
Asked
Active
Viewed 777 times
6
-
Does this answer your question? Are mythologies real (historical) or merely allegorical? – ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤ Jan 22 '21 at 06:42
-
They are real entities but they do not have a distinct appearance. – Nov 01 '22 at 12:25
3 Answers
8
Good question! But I see a slight contradiction in your wording. You ask about "specific appearance", while at the same time asking whether "they really exist as entities".
Existence is difference from appearance. The substance water exists. But it may appear differently in solid, liquid and gaseous forms.
Similarly, the ultimate absolute reality exists (सत्), but it may appear as different names and forms (नामरूप). You may say that this सत् is not like water, we don't actually see it. But what is actually occurring is that you are experiencing (अनुभव) it. You experience the existence of water through various senses.
Similarly, this सत् is experienced. But this सत् is much more subtle to experience than water. It is experienced not through the senses and conveyed to the mind, but quite in the reverse. सत् is experienced beyond the mind and senses, and then transported back to the level of the mind and senses. The forms and names given to various deities such as Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, are a result of experiencing the सत् and then bringing back the experience to the level of the mind in various modes.
This is why Rig Veda 1.164.46 says:
इन्द्रं मित्रं वरुणमग्निमाहुरथो दिव्यः स सुपर्णो गरुत्मान् ।
एकं सद् विप्रा बहुधा वदन्त्यग्निं यमं मातरिश्वानमाहुः ॥
The one Existence or Reality (Sat) is named variously by the wise people. They call it Indra, Agni, Mitra, Varuna, Yama, Suparna, Matarishvan, etc.
Taittiriya Upanishad 2.9.1:
यतो वाचो निवर्तन्ते । अप्राप्य मनसा सह । आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो विद्वान् । न बिभेति कुतश्चनेति ।
From which mind and speech return back, not having reached it. Having known this Bliss of Brahman, one does not have any fear.
So you see, experiencing this सत् occurs beyond the mind and speech, but describing it must occur in the mind and speech. Since the mind and speech are as various as the people who have them, we get various descriptions of the same सत्.
Other references in scriptures-
RV 5.44.6:
यादृगेव ददृशे तादृगुच्यते ...
In whatever form he is seen, in that form he is described/praised/worshiped...
Katha Upanishad 2.2.9:
अग्निर्यथैको भुवनं प्रविष्टो रूपं रूपं प्रतिरूपो बभूव ।
एकस्तथा सर्वभूतान्तरात्मा रूपं रूपं प्रतिरूपो बहिश्च ॥
Just as the one Agni, having entered the world, shows up differently according to each form, similarly the one Atman of all, shows up differently according to each form."
Chandogya Upanishad 6.1.4:
यथा एकेन मृत्पिण्डेन सर्वं मृन्मयं विज्ञातं स्याद् वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयं मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्
Just as all parts made of clay are known by knowledge of a lump of clay, names are only variations of speech. ‘Clay’ is their only reality.
RamAbloh
- 2,754
- 11
- 35
6
Do Gods really exist as entities with a specific appearance?
Yes they do, because that is how they are described in the Vedas. For example:
Indra has ever close to him his two bay steeds and word-yoked car, Indra the golden, thunder-armed.
In the Vedas, the gods are described as having a particular body with particular characteristics, and doing various activities that require a physical body.
This is also explained by the Brahma Sutra commentators.
Ramanujacharya in his commentary on the Brahma Sutras says:
Pragâpati with fuel in their hands, staying with him as pupils for thirty-two years, &c. (Kh. Up. VIII, 7 ff.), clearly shows that the devas possess bodies and sense-organs. Analogously, mantras and arthavâdas, which are complementary to injunctions of works, contain unmistakeable references to the corporeal nature of the gods ('Indra holding in his hand the thunderbolt'; 'Indra lifted the thunderbolt', &c.); and as the latter is not contradicted by any other means of proof it must be accepted on the authority stated.
Shankaracharya in his Brahma Sutra commentary:
...[the gods'] corporeality appears from mantras, arthavâdas, itihâsas, purânas, and ordinary experience.
These descriptions should be taken literally because there is no reason to do otherwise.
Ikshvaku
- 22,130
- 2
- 39
- 116
-
If the devas have a corporeal nature, and are bound to a specific body, then how are they capable of being present in an idol? – Nov 01 '22 at 13:50
-
@KeoBelur They aren't bound to a specific body. They have several bodies that are animated by their consciousness. The temple idol is also animated by their consciousness. – Ikshvaku Nov 01 '22 at 14:36
-
-
@KeoBelur It's not possible for anyone to act without a body, that's why they have a body. – Ikshvaku Nov 02 '22 at 16:58
-
That assumption sounds too materialistic. If they are capable of animating a temple idol away from their body, then that implies that they can do things without their body (and so don't need a body to act). – Nov 02 '22 at 17:22
-
-
And if these bodies are just creations of the devas, separate and distinct, then these bodies must be lifeless and incapable of sensation, meaning that devas do not feel material sensations. Which would mean that that scripture or literature describes a deva as feeling a material sensation, actually means that the deva APPEARED as if he were feeling that sensation but did not actually experience any material sensations. – Nov 03 '22 at 09:53
-
@KeoBelur They have a divine body to enjoy things like material pleasure. I don't know how someone can enjoy material things without a material body. – Ikshvaku Nov 04 '22 at 13:19
-
I don't how anything in what the Brahma Sutras or Ramanuja says answers this question, because there is no reason to think that the limbs of the devas have a "specific appearance". – Terjij Kassal Dec 29 '22 at 01:10
-
@TerjijKassal "because there is no reason to think that the limbs of the devas have a "specific appearance"" - The reason is scriptural attestations, the Brahma Sutras in the brahma sutras, and the words of Veda pandits (Ramanujacharya). Are you not satisfied? What kind of reason are you looking for? – Ikshvaku Jan 04 '23 at 00:28
-
They tell us the devas have limbs, they do not tell us that these limbs have a specific appearance. – Terjij Kassal Jan 04 '23 at 04:21
-
@TerjijKassal The original question wasn't about whether the limbs have a specific appearance, but whether the gods themselves have a specific appearance. But as to your question whether the limbs themselves have a specific appearance, that is also described too, with Indra having red beard and hair, Vishnu having a grey/blue appearance, Lakshmi being golden hued, etc. – Ikshvaku Jan 21 '23 at 13:39
-
Those lines don't necessarily mean that the devas essentially have a certain appearance. – Terjij Kassal Jan 21 '23 at 19:28
-
@TerjijKassal Sorry I'm not sure what you mean. They are describing their appearance don't they? – Ikshvaku Jan 22 '23 at 02:49
-
If I am wearing blue clothes, people will call me blue, even though I'm not essentially red. So it's possible that Indra takes on a visible form and is called visible, even though he may not be essentially visible. – Terjij Kassal Jan 22 '23 at 05:00
-
@TerjijKassal Scripture doesn't make any distinction between visible or invisible Indra, Vishnu, etc. It just describes Indra with red hair, beard, holding a thunderbolt, etc. – Ikshvaku Jan 27 '23 at 02:08
-
-
@TerjijKassal So, we can say these verses are describing their appearance... – Ikshvaku Jan 27 '23 at 14:29
-
But if it's describing their essential characteristics or their contingent characteristics, we do not know. – Terjij Kassal Jan 27 '23 at 17:10
-
It doesn't matter, because it's still describing their appearance. The person who asked this question did not make any distinction between "essential" or "contingent" characteristics. So, we can answer with simple verses from scripture describing their characteristics. – Ikshvaku Jan 28 '23 at 01:51
-
-
Now the question asks if they have a specific appearance, and if the devas assume their bodies based off of will and not by nature, then it undermines the question's wording, which asks if they have a "specific" appearance, since then they could appear as a man as easily as they could appear as a goat, a tree, or a mountain. – Terjij Kassal Jan 29 '23 at 19:42
-
Plus you have to remember the context of the Brahma Sutras, they're arguing against the idea that the devas can't assume forms, which I have never said. Because I only said that the devas are not restricted by their forms. – Terjij Kassal Jan 29 '23 at 19:47
-
Even then, the description of Indra having red hair, red beard, etc. is assumed to be describing his specific or original appearance unless the text describes it otherwise. – Ikshvaku Jan 29 '23 at 20:01
-
There is no reason from the text to believe that Indra even has a specific or original appearance. There is no reason to believe that the verse isn't just describing the appearance of one of the bodies that he has assumed. – Terjij Kassal Jan 30 '23 at 02:52
-
@TerjijKassal First of all, I don't even think Indra has other forms. He has taken some specific incarnations, but when he does, the scriptures will specifically mention that and how they look. Otherwise, when the scriptures everywhere mention Indra being "thunder-bolt armed", "red-haired", etc. then we can assume this is referring to his "main" form. The Puranas, Itihasas, scholarly tradition, and public perception of Indra also show that this is his main form. – Ikshvaku Jan 30 '23 at 23:58
-
-
@TerjijKassal "But his main form by his will or his main by his nature?" - By his nature. Gods are not disembodied beings who take up a main form by their own will. – Ikshvaku Feb 08 '23 at 13:40
-
-
-
@TerjijKassal If anything they make it invisible so ordinary people can't see them, but according to Vaishnavism, jivatmas are reincarnated into bodies of gods in heaven. Now there are other schools and interpretations like Mimamsa who believe that gods are just abstract concepts. The thing is that Hindu literature is very vast and seemingly has contradictions, and so each scholar and each school has their own interpretation of these seemingly conflicting passages and verses. – Ikshvaku Feb 09 '23 at 13:49
-
I have the opposite view- that the devas make themselves visible so that people can see them. – Terjij Kassal Feb 09 '23 at 18:10
-
I'm not saying that devas don't naturally have bodies, just that those bodies are invisible, intangible, and immaterial. – Terjij Kassal Feb 09 '23 at 19:14
-
Anyways, if devas can have multiple bodies, that implies that they don't need a body to exist. – Terjij Kassal Feb 11 '23 at 21:21
-
"By his nature. Gods are not disembodied beings who take up a main form by their own will." Why do you say this? – Terjij Kassal Feb 13 '23 at 04:47
-
@TerjijKassal "Why do you say this?" Because the scriptures portray the gods as having bodies and doing actions, and the Jivatma needs a body to do things; the only time it is without a body is in the state of dissolution when the universe has been destroyed and God is about to create another universe. Where and what would it be doing without a body? Just floating in the sky? Where would its consciousness be localized? What would they experience? The scripture doesn't mention any of this, but instead it only mentions gods as having bodies. – Ikshvaku Feb 14 '23 at 03:17
-
@TerjijKassal You also need a mind and intellect to think of things; the Jivatma cannot think and act by itself, it needs a mind, intellect, and body to will things. – Ikshvaku Feb 14 '23 at 03:18
-
I'm not claiming that the devas are disembodied beings in the sense that they are jivas without bodies of any kind. I never said that. I only claimed that they are disembodied beings in the sense that they do not have physical bodies. Obviously, the devas do have mind/intellect. – Terjij Kassal Feb 14 '23 at 17:13
-
Scripture does not contradict me, since I never said that the devas do not assume physical bodies, I only claimed that they do not essentially have physical bodies. – Terjij Kassal Feb 14 '23 at 17:15
-
@TerjijKassal I have not seen any indication in scripture saying that gods have an essential body consisting of only manas (mind) and buddhi (intellect) and no physical body. – Ikshvaku Feb 15 '23 at 17:49
4
Do Gods really have a specific (materialistic) appearance?
No. But they can take any appearance based on their will.
I know that brahma vishnu and maheshwar are representations of creation, protection and destruction cycles. but do they really exist as entities?
True, Brahma Vishnu, and Maheshwar are representations of creation, preservation, and merging cycles. And they do not exist as material entities in their original form, but can take the form of any entity if they want.
The everlasting bodies of gods like Brahma, Vishnu, and Maheswara are not in material form. But, they can assume any form by their will, which is generally called as Satya-Sankalpa.
The following are the words of Vasistha about the body of Brahma
All created beings that are produced of a cause, have two bodies (the sukshma and the sthula or the subtile and the gross). But the unborn being which is without a cause, has one body only (which is called the ativahika or the everlasting spiritual body). The increate Brahma is the cause of all created beings, but the uncreated spirit having no cause for itself, has one body for it. The prime lord of creatures has no material body; but manifests himself in the vacuous form of his spiritual body. His body is composed of the mind alone, and has no connection with the earth or any other material substance. He is the first lord of creatures, that stretched the creation from his vacuous body (or spiritual essence). All these are but forms of the images or ideas in his vacuous mind, and having no other patterns or originals in their nature. And that every thing is of the same nature with its cause, is a truth well known to all (from the identity of the effect and its material cause). He is an inexistent being and of the manner of perfect intelligence. He is purely of the form of the mind, and has an intellectual and no material entity. He is prime (cause) of all material productions in the physical world, and is born of himself with his prime mobile force in the form of the mind. It was by the first impulse given by the prime moving power, that this expanse of creation came to be spread in the same ratio, as the currents of air and water (or the velocity of winds and tides), are in proportion to the impetus given to them. This creation shining so bright to our sight, has caught its light from the luminous mind of the formless Brahma, and appears as real to our conceptions (as they are ideal in the Divine mind).
Thus, Gods like Brahma, Vishnu, Maheswara really exist as formless, material-less ativahika bodies as described above.
You may get a doubt of how a material less body can able to create material universe. Vasistha shows an example of dream (jsut) to understand it
Our vision in a dream is the best illustration of this (unreality of worldly things): as that of the enjoyment of connubial bliss in dreaming. It is then that an unreal object of desire, presents itself as an actual gain to our fond and false imagination.
In dreams, our mind or intellect can able to experience the material world, which has no form by itself.
hanugm
- 31,700
- 11
- 70
- 175
-
1Can this answer also answer: What bodies do the trimurti and their consorts have – Adiyarkku Jan 18 '21 at 09:13
-
@Archit It partially answers that, but the bodies of gods in heavenly planets are different. – hanugm Jan 18 '21 at 11:53
-
-
1@Archit Not only him, I intend to say that who has the power of satya kama and satya sankalpa can have such linga dehas. others may not have. – hanugm Jan 18 '21 at 12:03