Of the Formless and the 'forms'

[anveshan 0]

Of the Formless and the ‘form’

 

One of the widely debated subject is about Fom. Whether IT has some form , whether IT has assumed forms or whether IT is the Formless ‘form’.

 

To the bible says IT is He in a human form and to the quran IT is formless. To the ancient religious philosophies, whether it is Indian, African, Aztec, Mayan or Chinese( We can put all in the ‘oriental’

category) IT is formless, but has assumed forms.

 

I remember of a debate I entered into with a Muslim scholar, when I was 18 or 19. I was trying to establish that Mohammed was no authorized representative or the Last sole selling agent of God, that he

was a great social reformer, warrior and administrator of the Arabs. He became very angry and said the

Indians worship the lingam and the yoni, the snake and the monkey. At that time I could not logically convince him what all these stands for or why people worshipped the monkey and the lingam.

 

This debate or argument started my anveshanam. Great books and great people explained me that Hanuma was an avtar of Shiva, that on the Anatha lay Anthapadmanabha and the like….Later I found it was so simple.

 

Our great seers and sages-philosophers and satyanveshis of the highest order- has conveyed it all. The Lord of all beings does not differentiate between beings. He may take the form of a fish or a pig or a nra-simha. He could be realized in the form of a snake or monkey or a donkey. Krishna and Rama, Caitanya

or Sai Baba may be avatars or may not be. But that is irrelevant and immaterial. You are seeking IT through the form of Sri Krishna or Shri Chaitanya. The formless is the creater of all forms and could be reached thru forms. The great Acharya said:

“paratmanekam jagd beejamaadyam

Nireeham nirakaaram omkaaravedyam

Yato jayate` palyate` yena viswam

Tameesam bhaje` leeyate` yatra viswam”

 

“ I adore the Lord, the Supreme Atman, the One, the Primeordeal Cause of the Universe, the Actionless, the Formless, who is signified by Om, from whom it is sustained and into whom it dissolves”

 

“ Na bhoomirna chapo` na vahnir na vayu

Na chakashamaste` na tandra na nidra:

Na greeshmo` na sheetam na deso` na veso

Na yasyasti moortisrimoortim tamide`”

 

“ I worship that Lord of three-fold form, who is beyond all form, who is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor the air, nor the ether, who has no weariness or sleep, no heat or cold, no place or dwelling”

 

The Acharya, who argued that IT is one without a second, composed shlokas on Viswanath, Annapuna, Kali and Krishna. Shri Guru Nanak, who said IT is Nirankari, called IT Shiva and Govinda. The Acharya explained. IT is formless, at the same time cause of all forms.

 

The great Buddha and the great Kapila( the ‘Nirishwara’ one) were attempting to realize the Truth.

Call IT the Primoprdial Nature, the Narayana or Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. We all will understand that we all are trying to reach out the chaitanya, the only Chaitanya, the Primordial Energy which is abstract and at the same time concrete.

 

[Guest guest]

Informational Technology isn't THAT great.

[theist 1]

How did the attributless IT decide to manifest as these Avatars. As soon as IT decides on anything It loses IT's designation as an IT. Isn't it?

[Guest guest]

IT is something, anything, that stores, manipulates and transmits information.

 

take any technology, amd it has form, else it does not exist. even software exists. it is tangible on paper or on a disk, etc.

 

to compare IT with god

is like comparing a chip with the sun.

 

anveshan (investigation, research) without direction leads nowhere.

 

[anveshan 0]

You have misunderstood my 'IT'. It is not information Technology, but is 'it', stands for Ultimate Reality, which to me is of neutral gender (not Him or Her) I address god with a big IT

[Guest guest]

ie. The whole is less than the parts.

[Guest guest]

i know, i was just kidding. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Vaishnava_das108 1]

LOL. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Vaishnava_das108 1]

 

You have misunderstood my 'IT'. It is not information Technology, but is 'it', stands for Ultimate Reality, which to me is of neutral gender (not Him or Her) I address god with a big IT

 

 

On what basis?

[Gauracandra 1]

If IT stands for Ultimate Reality, then lets call IT UR /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Guest guest]

So you are implying that IT( as you label him) is formless or "Nirakar" on the basis of teaching from Guru Nanak and Mohammed.

I totally disagree with this philosophy and prefer to go with the Christian view that "IT" has a form, very close to human but a form that is divine beyond comprehension. From this form ,formless light, enegery or " Tej" is generated, which many of these revolutionaries have mistaken for the ultimate form. Besides Vaishnav teachings convey that "IT" has a form , and to label "IT" as formless is blashphemous and a trait of a seasoned Nastik.

[Guest guest]

anveshan it is you it is all phenominality this vast spark of atman cannot be seperated or defined as other than what it essentially is.The appearance of beings is no other than the original formless light attached to the idea of form and ideation.We are the atman we are the jiva but these dual notions are not the absolute,in a clear mind atman shines in a pure body there is no form know this and attain self

Many blessings