Brahman=Nature?

[Silverbackman]

Can the Brahman be considered nature? I know it has many forms but the fundamental concept behind it is unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality that is the Divine Ground of all being. It is regarded as the source and sum of the cosmos, that constricted by time, space, and causation, as pure being, the "world soul."

In any religion of the world when a natural disaster occurs humans say that "God" caused it. God caused that flood or God caused that tsunami. However in science, when people try to describe this phenomena they say "Nature" caused it. Nature caused the flood, or nature caused the tsunami. Isn't nature and God the same and if that is the case isn't the Brahman Nature?

 

[satay]

Can the Brahman be considered nature? I know it has many forms but the fundamental concept behind it is unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality that is the Divine Ground of all being. It is regarded as the source and sum of the cosmos, that constricted by time, space, and causation, as pure being, the "world soul."

In any religion of the world when a natural disaster occurs humans say that "God" caused it. God caused that flood or God caused that tsunami. However in science, when people try to describe this phenomena they say "Nature" caused it. Nature caused the flood, or nature caused the tsunami. Isn't nature and God the same and if that is the case isn't the Brahman Nature?

Brahman has no attributes. Brahman can not be known and can not be understood. It is beyond human mind and understanding. Realization that there is no difference in your soul and Brahman is the state of enligtenment. To answer your question I don't think Brahman can be considered as nature but nature and everything in it can be considered an aspect of Brahman.

Again, this is just my opinion.

satay

 

[Agnideva]

Well, yes and no. According to monistic theory (advaita), Brahman is the efficient and material cause of the universe. Brahman is form, pervades form and is beyond form simultaneously. Nature is Brahman in that sense, but Brahman not limited by nature in any way, and Brahman is by no means nature only.

When natural disasters like tsunamis occur, we can’t really say that God (Brahman) caused it because of His wrath, and we also can’t say that what happened is independent of Brahman because Brahman is inseparable from everything.

Agnideva.

Can the Brahman be considered nature? I know it has many forms but the fundamental concept behind it is unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality that is the Divine Ground of all being. It is regarded as the source and sum of the cosmos, that constricted by time, space, and causation, as pure being, the "world soul."

In any religion of the world when a natural disaster occurs humans say that "God" caused it. God caused that flood or God caused that tsunami. However in science, when people try to describe this phenomena they say "Nature" caused it. Nature caused the flood, or nature caused the tsunami. Isn't nature and God the same and if that is the case isn't the Brahman Nature?

 

[Silverbackman]

Well I am not saying that the Brahman is limited to nature, after all it can form physical incarnations and what not. But isn't the Brahman the nature consider he is God. I mean I am not saying that the Brahman caused the tsunami out of wrath, perhaps he has another plan for us to do.

But considering the Brahman is everything and is all around us, I was thinking the universal force or whatever that drives the future for us and as well as the laws of nature is the Brahman.

 

[Silverbackman]

Or actually a better question would be, is God (Brahmin) everything? We are all apart of God, God is the very chemical reactions in our body, ect. ect.? God is the concentrated mind and its power, God is is the very food we eat, ect. ect.?