Impersonalism and dismissals on account of anthropomorphism

[greenberg]

There is the view which dismisses various arguments on account that those arguments are simply based on "anthropomorphizing" and that "anthropomorphizing" is in discord with reality (as it truly is). Often, those arguments are theistic arguments, but other non-theistic arguments are also dismissed on the grounds of the same charge.

That view says - "If something is described with human or human-like properties, ie. anthropomorphized, or argued for with arguments containing such anthropomorphizations, then such descriptions or arguments are false, for reality (as it truly is) is not human or human-like."

From the Vedic perspective (and perhaps some others, too), the above view is an example of impersonalism, is it not?

 

[lightgigantic]

Greenberg

There is the view which dismisses various arguments on account that those arguments are simply based on "anthropomorphizing" and that "anthropomorphizing" is in discord with reality (as it truly is). Often, those arguments are theistic arguments, but other non-theistic arguments are also dismissed on the grounds of the same charge.

That view says - "If something is described with human or human-like properties, ie. anthropomorphized, or argued for with arguments containing such anthropomorphizations, then such descriptions or arguments are false, for reality (as it truly is) is not human or human-like."

From the Vedic perspective (and perhaps some others, too), the above view is an example of impersonalism, is it not?

Like all substantial theistic claims, impersonalism has its foundation in scripture. Meaning there are various citations for determining the impersonal aspect of god.
For example the Sanskrit word nirarca can be taken quite literally as no (nir) form (arca)

When there is a statement in the Vedic language that God has no form, it does not mean God has no form, but He has form which one cannot imagine. That is called formless. Actually God is not formless, but the nature of that form, cannot be imagined.

This tallies with other vedic statements which qualify the nature of god’s form, eg

Brahma Samhita 5.31 I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose transcendental form is full of bliss, truth and substantiality and is thus full of the most dazzling splendor. Each of the limbs of that transcendental figure possesses, in Himself, the full-fledged functions of all the organs, and eternally sees, maintains and manifests the infinite universes, both spiritual and mundane.

Sometimes it is indicated how the form of the lord is covered by an impersonal splendour

Iso Mantra 16. O my Lord, O primeval philosopher, maintainer of the universe, O regulating principle, destination of the pure devotees, well-wisher of the progenitors of mankind, please remove the effulgence of Your transcendental rays so that I can see Your form of bliss.

The argument between impersonalists and personalists in the Vedas is not whether the personal/impersonal aspect of god exists or not, but whether it is the personal aspect that is the cause of the impersonal aspect or vice versa.
Anticipating this issue, the BG mentions

BG 7.24 Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kåñëa, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.

And also

BG 12.1 Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?
BG 12.2 The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect.

And also

BG 14.27 And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.


I recall one incident (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrP8Dvprrtk&feature=related) where a muslim scholar was arguing against polytheistic ideas in the Vedas by using various impersonal arguments (Islam has strong impersonal threads within its teachings), yet when he came to arguing the validity of the impersonal view on the strength of the Vedas, he cited scriptural references that had given rise to polytheistic practices. In other words one particular natural consequence of impersonalism is a sort of polytheism where any worship of anything you want to call god is as good as any other, since god ultimately has no form, no qualities etc etc.

Anyway … maybe you can see how both views are diametrically opposed despite calling upon various henological arguments to maintain validity

 

[greenberg]

How come impersonalism can be so attractive to some people / sometimes?

I take it an impersonalist view is easier to maintain and act upon than a personalist one. With impersonalism, there is little need for things like consistency of thought and action, keeping vows, seeing relationships through thick and thin ...
Also, it seems to me an impersonalist view is more appealing in times of welfare, where there seems to be no immediate need to deal with aging, illness and death - when things go so well that it seems to suffice to give aging, illness and death merely a generalized attention.

 

[Enmos]

There is the view which dismisses various arguments on account that those arguments are simply based on "anthropomorphizing" and that "anthropomorphizing" is in discord with reality (as it truly is). Often, those arguments are theistic arguments, but other non-theistic arguments are also dismissed on the grounds of the same charge.

That view says - "If something is described with human or human-like properties, ie. anthropomorphized, or argued for with arguments containing such anthropomorphizations, then such descriptions or arguments are false, for reality (as it truly is) is not human or human-like."

From the Vedic perspective (and perhaps some others, too), the above view is an example of impersonalism, is it not?

What do you exactly mean with impersonalization ? I suspect it's not meant in a positive way..

 

[greenberg]

One way to generally describe impersonalism is that impersonalism is the view that the truth is "objective", not "human-like".


Another example of impersonalism is, for example, to associate the notion of "calm" with something like this

as opposed to this

And similar goes for various other notions where we take a human personal trait, but associate it with something non-personal.

 

[Enmos]

One way to generally describe impersonalism is that impersonalism is the view that the truth is "objective", not "human-like".


Another example of impersonalism is, for example, to associate the notion of "calm" with something like this

as opposed to this

And similar goes for various other notions where we take a human personal trait, but associate it with something non-personal.

Ok, so you meant it in a straight forward manner.
What's wrong with impersonalization ?
Humans need to stop deifying themselves, it's sickening. It's where ignorance of nature and lack of respect for nature come from.

 

[greenberg]

What's wrong with impersonalization ?

With an impersonalist view, one thinks that what one does doesn't really matter, that what one does won't come back at oneself - since there is no personal self where the effects of actions could return to.
IOW, impersonalism is the instruction for moral relativism.

 

[Enmos]

With an impersonalist view, one thinks that what one does doesn't really matter, that what one does won't come back at oneself - since there is no personal self where the effects of actions could return to.
IOW, impersonalism is the instruction for moral relativism.

Why ?

Would you consider me impersonalistic ?

 

[lightgigantic]

How come impersonalism can be so attractive to some people / sometimes?

because the nature of the self becomes too troublesome - kind of like if a property becomes a great liability in maintenance and taxes it becomes attractive to burn it down

I take it an impersonalist view is easier to maintain and act upon than a personalist one. With impersonalism, there is little need for things like consistency of thought and action, keeping vows, seeing relationships through thick and thin ...


Also, it seems to me an impersonalist view is more appealing in times of welfare, where there seems to be no immediate need to deal with aging, illness and death - when things go so well that it seems to suffice to give aging, illness and death merely a generalized attention.

I'm not sure I follow?
Makes it easier suffer?
Actually there are perhaps two types of impersonalism - one is the classical variety and the other is kind of a trickled down new age sort.
The classical variety is incredibly strict, and even messing up the vows a little bit ruins the whole thing.
The other sort tends to work out as nothing more than some sort of wisdom in hindsight about the fallibly nature of material identity, although it offers no practical means for reducing that fallible aspect (I mean how many half baked relationships do you think it would take to turn your life upside down?)

 

[greenberg]

because the nature of the self becomes too troublesome - kind of like if a property becomes a great liability in maintenance and taxes it becomes attractive to burn it down

What is it about the nature of the self that can make it troublesome?
The obligations it carries, its defining characteristics, that it can never be still and has no choice but to be active ...?

I'm not sure I follow?
Makes it easier suffer?

I meant that in times of welfare, when aging, illness and death do not seem so all-pervading (ie. if one is relatively wealthy and healthy, thoughts of death can be very distant), people can literally "forget themselves" and immerse -and lose- themselves into the pleasures that health and wealth provide. Once this happens, there is fertile ground for impersonalism (although this would be the more populistic variety of "impersonalism"), combined with the pursuit of materialistic pleasures.

(Of course not everyone who is experiencing health and wealth will fall into impersonalism.)

Actually there are perhaps two types of impersonalism - one is the classical variety and the other is kind of a trickled down new age sort.
The classical variety is incredibly strict, and even messing up the vows a little bit ruins the whole thing.

What schools or traditions would be examples of the classical variety of impersonalism? Early Buddhism?

 

[lightgigantic]

Greenberg

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
because the nature of the self becomes too troublesome - kind of like if a property becomes a great liability in maintenance and taxes it becomes attractive to burn it down
”
What is it about the nature of the self that can make it troublesome?
The obligations it carries, its defining characteristics, that it can never be still and has no choice but to be active ...?

all these things when it finds its expression in the material world. Basically impersonalist philosophy boils down to action, name, form and thought causes suffering ... so the way to avoid suffering is to get rid of all action, etc etc

“
I'm not sure I follow?
Makes it easier suffer?
”
I meant that in times of welfare, when aging, illness and death do not seem so all-pervading (ie. if one is relatively wealthy and healthy, thoughts of death can be very distant), people can literally "forget themselves" and immerse -and lose- themselves into the pleasures that health and wealth provide.

Once this happens, there is fertile ground for impersonalism (although this would be the more populistic variety of "impersonalism"), combined with the pursuit of materialistic pleasures.

sure, the trickled down new age variety - they say it is all one but somehow become very proficient at squeezing out some pleasure from the oneness - lol

Once this happens, there is fertile ground for impersonalism (although this would be the more populistic variety of "impersonalism"), combined with the pursuit of materialistic pleasures.

“
Actually there are perhaps two types of impersonalism - one is the classical variety and the other is kind of a trickled down new age sort.
The classical variety is incredibly strict, and even messing up the vows a little bit ruins the whole thing.
”
What schools or traditions would be examples of the classical variety of impersonalism? Early Buddhism?

yes thats one
followed by advaita vada inline with sankaracharya
you can even find strains of it in christian strains like trappist monks or even during heavy periods in islam where even the notion of a portrait was deemed inappropriate (thats when they started developing all those mind boggling mosaic patterns in their architecture)

 

[U-wanderer]

To greenberg,

Are you a Buddhist?
Becase the underding in impersonalism perspective
is the destination in Buddha religion.

Who can trully understand,
mean he achieve the Buddha's principle.
It is super.. difficult.