Bhagavan Sarva Shaktiman

Bhagavan is Sarva Shaktiman – Part 2

In part 1, we had a brief look at the omnipotence paradox. Omnipotence paradox questions if God can create a task that God will not be able to perform.

Brahman and Isvara.

Let us take the two terms Brahman and Isvara / Bhagavan as Vedic definition of God.

Brahman:

Taittriya Upanisad defines Brahma(n) as Satyam, Jnanam and Anantham. Brahma is one of the trinities  and considered as the creator of this universe.  We are not talking about that Brahma, but Brahman who is substratum of everything.

Brahman is

-                      Satyam – the only real vastu (stuff, thing or entity); Truth or existence.

-                      Jnanam – consciousness that enlivens everything; Chit; Omniscience.

-                      Anantham – is everywhere; omnipresence.

Brahman is Sat, Chit, Anantha.  We want to carefully avoid using Ananda (Bliss) as a charecteristic of Brahman.

If one understands Brahman, the entire teachings of Veda, upanisads and the scriptures is complete. There is nothing more to learn. Further studies and elaborations are required only when this understanding is incomplete.

Isvara:

All our prayers praise the attributes of Brahman and Isvara. Vishnu sahasranama, Lalitha Sahasranama, Rudram (Namakam) list and praise the attributes of Isvara. Brahman is without name, form or any attributes.  Isvara is with name, form and attributes. Brahman is nirguna (without gunas), whereas Isvara is saguna (with gunas).

Sahasranamas constantly switch between nirguna and saguna, thus providing a very interesting material for chanting, singing, analysis, study and meditation.

The trinities – Siva, Vishnu and Brahma are Isvara. We want to use a common term, Isvara for all the three functions of creation, sustenance and dissolution.

Isvara is the deity to which we pray. We invoke that formless Brahman on a lump of tumeric as Ganesha and pray to remove all our obstacles.

Brahman is Omnipotent

Brahman is Chit or Gnanam. That principle of Chit illuminates and gives the power of knowledge and awareness to all living beings. My awareness and all knowledge is due to Brahman’s Chit or gnana shakthi. When Brahman shines on my mind and intellect, I get my personal awareness and personal knoweldge.

A mathematically challenged person is absolutely certain that 3 + 2 = 6. A mathematical genius knows that this is wrong. The very same Chit illuminates both the correct and wrong knowledge of each. We saw various arguments on God’s omnipotence. Brahman as a non dual entity without a second, illuminates all these arguments. Can God create a task that it cannot perform? Any arguments in favour or against God is witnessed and made possible only by Brahman’s gnana shakthi. Is the paradox silly or an argument on semantics? Who is correct? The believer or the non-believer?

The beauty of Vedic vision, the vision of vedanta is that all things that are possible and all things that are not possible are only Brahman. In this universe, a logical concept exists. An illogical concept does not exist. Sat principle of Brahman provides existance to all logical concepts as well as the existance to the concept that ‘an illogical concept does not exist’.

Bhagavan

Let us define Bhagavan now, which is an alternate term for Isvara.

Bhagavan  is the one who has bhaga, the six-fold virtues in absolute measure.

भगः अस्य अस्ति इति भगवान्

bhagaḥ asya asti iti bhagavān

The one who has bhaga is called bhagavan. It is said in the Vishnu Purana (6.5.74)

ऐश्वर्यस्य समग्रस्य वीर्यस्य यशसः श्रियः।

ज्ञान-वैराग्ययोश्चैव षण्णां भग इतीरणा॥

aiśvaryasya samagrasya vīryasya yaśasaḥ śriyaḥ |

jñāna-vairāgyayoścaiva ṣaṇṇāṁ bhaga itīraṇā ||

Total and absolute overlordship, power, wealth, dispassion, fame and knowledge are known as bhaga. These are: all knowledge, jnana; total dispassion, vairagya; the capacity to create, sustain, and resolve, virya; absolute fame, yasas; all wealth, sri; and overlordship, aisvarya.

Bhagavan is omnipotent

From the above definition of Bhagavan, we find that Bhagavan is sarva shaktiman.  Bhagavan is in the form of iccha shakthi (power to desire), gnana shakthi (power of knowledge and awareness), kriya shakthi (power to create, sustain and resolve).  All these bhaga or six fold virtues are present in Bhagavan in absolute measure.

The model of vyashti and samashti is also useful in discussions. Vyashti is at individual level. A tree, wave is an individual item – vyashti. Whereas a forest, ocean is samashti – sum total, universal or cosmic level.  Bhagavan is the samashti – sum total of everything that there is. Whereas the individual (jiva) is a vyashti in this Jagat (universe).

Thus we may arrive at a conclusion that saguna Isvara (saguna - with attributes) is also all powerful, because scriptures say so and Isvara is samashti – sum total of all manifestations, unmanifestation, logical, illogical, possible, impossible, past, present, future, etc.

Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent

Any one of the three characteristics imply the other two. An entity cannot be omnipotent without being omnipresent or omniscient. An entity which is present everywhere must be formless, exist in three periods of time and can not have a location.

Omnipotence Paradox – Part I

Omnipotence Paradox –  Part I: An Analysis and collation from wiki

This note summarises various arguments on God’s omnipotence paradox under relevant headings.

URL Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Definition:
The omnipotence paradox is a family of related paradoxes addressing the question of whether the existence of an omnipotent entity is logically possible. The paradox states that if a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task it is unable to perform, and hence, it cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if it cannot create a task it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.
History:
The argument is medieval, dating at least to the 12th century, addressed by Averroës (1126–1198) and later by Thomas Aquinas. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (before 532) has a predecessor version of the paradox, asking whether it is possible for God to "deny himself".
Example:
A common modern version of the omnipotence paradox is expressed in the question: "Can [an omnipotent being] create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it?" This question generates a dilemma. The being can either create a stone which it cannot lift, or it cannot create a stone which it cannot lift. If the being can create a stone that it cannot lift, then it seems that it can cease to be omnipotent. If the being cannot create a stone which it cannot lift, then it seems it is already not omnipotent.
Another paradox:
The problem is similar to another classic paradox, the irresistible force paradox: What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? One response to this paradox is that if a force is irresistible, then by definition there is no truly immovable object; conversely, if an immovable object were to exist, then no force could be defined as being truly irresistible. But this way-out is not possible in the case of an omnipotence being, because the purpose is to ask if the being's omnipotence makes its own omnipotence impossible.
Intrinsic or essential omnipotence:
Omnipotence with respect to actions which are not logically contradictory is  known as Essential Omnipotence. The omnipotent being is essentially omnipotent, and therefore it is impossible for it to be non-omnipotent. Further, the omnipotent being cannot do what is logically impossible. The creation of a stone which the omnipotent being cannot lift would be an impossibility. The omnipotent being cannot create such a stone, but nevertheless retains its omnipotence. An essentially omnipotent being would be able to lift stones, create the universe, etc, but would not be able to violate his own laws or create square circles. Many Christians hold to the idea that god can do the logically impossible, and that the paradox is only a paradox to human beings.
Incidental, casual, accidental or temporary omnipotence:
Unlike essentially omnipotent entities, it is possible for an accidentally omnipotent being to be non-omnipotent. This raises the question, however, of whether or not the being was ever truly omnipotent, or just capable of great power. On the other hand, the ability to voluntarily give up great power is often thought of as central to the notion of the Christian Incarnation.

Can an omnipotent being will himself non-omnipotent? Accidental omnipotence suggests that this is possible. If God can do absolutely anything, then God can remove His own omnipotence. If God can remove His own omnipotence, then God can create an enormous stone, remove His own omnipotence, then not be able to lift the stone. This preserves the belief that God is omnipotent because God can create a stone that He couldn't lift. Therefore, in this theory, God would not be omnipotent while not being able to lift the stone. While it is simply put that as long as God chooses not to create such stone, he is still omnipotent. Choosing is different from unable to do so.
Another version of incidental / casual omnipotence:
One can attempt to resolve the paradox by asserting a kind of omnipotence that does not demand that a being must be able to do all things at all times. According to this line of reasoning, the being can create a stone which it cannot lift at the moment of creation. Being omnipotent, however, the being can always alter the stone (or itself) later so that it can lift it. Therefore the being is still, perhaps, in some sense omnipotent. But if you consider the fact that if the being alters the stone it is no longer the same stone, and if it makes itself stronger, that is proof enough it was not previously omnipotent, and will never be truly omnipotent, not within the realm of logic. But this solution merely pushes the problem back a step; one may ask whether an omnipotent being can create a stone so immutable that the being itself cannot later alter it.
Omnipotent being can perform what is logically impossible:
Some philosophers maintain that the paradox can be resolved if the definition of omnipotence includes Descartes' view that an omnipotent being can do the logically impossible. In this scenario, the omnipotent being could create a stone which it cannot lift, but could also then lift the stone anyway. The paradox may be solved, but at the expense of making the logic a paraconsistent logic. This might not seem like a problem if one is already committed to dialetheism or some other form of logical transcendence. Dialetheism is the view that there are true contradictions, or dialetheia. More specifically, dialetheists believe that for some sentence or proposition P, both P and its negation, not-P are true.
Can God negate God?
Faithful christians hold on to Augustine of Hippo (City of God) who argued that God could not do anything or create any situation that would in effect make God not God.
Omnipotent being cannot perform what is logically impossible:
Another common response to the omnipotence paradox is to try to define omnipotence to mean something weaker than absolute omnipotence. The paradox can be resolved by simply stipulating that omnipotence does not require the being to have abilities which are logically impossible, but only to be able to do anything which conforms to the laws of logic. The arguement that it is no limitation on a being's omnipotence to say that it cannot make a round square. Such a "task" is inherently nonsense.
Non-believer’s View:
Most repudiations of the omnipotence paradox usually concern the definition of omnipotence, reducing it to merely an argument about semantics. These refutations assert that the paradox misrepresents omnipotence and the nature of God, as in their view, omnipotence is not necessarily bound by the laws of logic, physics or mathematics. Non-believers often have trouble grasping this idea, but those happy to accept that God is truly omnipotent regardless of what logic says have no trouble dealing with it.
Vision of Veda:
Part II shall attempt to examine this paradox with the vision of Veda.