by Sri Bimal Mohanty
VOL No. 44
October. 2004

THE DEBATE- FORM OR FORMLESS?

Part 1

"Based on the lectures by Sri Bimal Mohanty"

Having spent time in exploring some facets of that wonderful entity- Brahman, we now come to discuss a very common question that arises in the minds of all seekers of spiritual knowledge. Is God with form or is HE formless?

This is a spiritual as well as intellectual controversy, which never seems to end and the arguers (vAdaratAs) have never ceased to find a new point of arguement. Even The Isavasya Upanishad articulates it

Anyat eva Ahuh sambhavAt anyat Ahuh asambhavAt-

Some say he is manifest and some say he is unmanifest. Such a direct statement, if not understood in the right context, naturally will confuse people.

What is form?

A form is defined as manifestation with physical, mental, and psychic definitions with specific and defined attributes. A form – any form – gives a definite picture at all these levels of perception.

In sanatan philosophy there is no derath of forms by which we perceive the Lord. What an explosion of imaginations we find in our scriptures! Heads of all Types and of any numbers, hands, eyes, shapes, colour or size, what has not been assumed while depicting the Lord. It would seem, as the devotees wished, so appeared the Lord.

However one thing certain about the forms is that they are very specific, well-defined with very good reasons may be, but nevertheless have inherent limitations imposed to them. Whether four heads or ten hands, they are still limitations that are inherent with the particular form and they are visualized only that way. Durga has to have ten hands, Brahma four heads, Kali in black only and Ganesha can not be visualized without the elephant head.

If The Lord or the Brahman is to be understood only within a particular specification, will this not go contrary to the very definition of God in sanAtan philosophy at the highest level? The bedrock of the sanAtan philosophy (for that matter all true spiritual philosophies) is that, God is without any limited adjuncts. Therefore to confine God within the framework of any form to begin with, is contradictory. So much so that one of our famous prayers goes like this: The seeker laments:

Rupam rupavivarjitasya bhavato dhyAnena yatkalpitam

StutyAnirvacaniyatAkhilaguro durikrtA yanmayA

VyApitvanca nirAkrtam bhagavato yattirthayAtrAdinA

Kshyantavyam jagadisha tadvikalatAdosatrayam matkrtam

Oh Lord, while meditating I have attributed forms to the formless Thee. Oh teacher, I have as it were described Thee, the indescribable, in my hymns, I have assumed you, the omnipresent, as if confined only to holy places that I have visited. Oh Lord forgive these three acts of audacity of mine.

These are indeed outpourings of a mind that realises that Brahman by definition is incompatible with any limitation or confinement. All along in our thinking there has been a deliberate consciousness, not to assign any limitation to the Lord. How can such an entity have any form? Any form?

Yet, no matter what may be understood to the contrary, who can deny the human mind that holds fast to a comforting form of a personal God? Is it possible to discard from mind the image of my personal God who is so dear to me?

So there has to be an infallible logic that would explain both these concepts, a logic that has kept alive both these concepts of form and formless from time immemorial.

This calls for a deeper probe and true understanding of form and formless (also expressed as personal and impersonal god). Some of these aspects we shall discuss here.

To begin with, when we talk of divine forms, who perceives these forms?

It is the mind.

All forms that we cognise are either residing in the mind or perceived through the mind. A person without a mind can not think (imagine) of any form. Therefore all forms reside in the mind.

The mind that imagines and is seized with these forms is also the same mind that a sAdhaka uses for his yogasadhanA. Yoga or linkage is established through the antahkarana (mind,intellect and ego-self). For simplification sake we can say it is predominantly the mind. Mind is the tool for sAdhanA.

(YogasadhanA by definition, is the establishment of a linkage between the jivAtmA (the individual soul) with the ParamAtmA or the Supreme soul.) Therefore if a sadhaka while going through his sadhana is so dependent and continues to be dependent on these imaginations of the mind then this concept of form must be playing a supportive role in Yoga sadhana itself. If it were not, why should the mind remain so attached and devoted to a form?