Which is correct?
If God is in the image of man then isn't God but an imagination of the man?
If Man is in the image of God, isn't that again a vain claim by man.
Would to be sacrilege to say God is an image of a mountain or a banyan tree or a koala bear?
In the search of absolute truth, my conclusion here is there isn't one. Let us say absolute truth may be found in a treatise written in one of the many human languages, but whichever it maybe it will be but a scripture of a man's perspective written by man or woman.
Therefore how can it be the absolute truth given an infinite world with infinite possibilities?
Could 4 legged beasts have a written or unwritten code or viewpoint on God? Could the ocean fish, the trees, or the many forms of nature?
Who can say, no, who can say yes? No one, therefore how can one reliably conclude on absolute truth. One cannot.
One can surmise, evidence within bounds of a frame of reference and convince through powers of persuasion, intellect and communication. However, what may come out as a widely spread view as an outcome of that does not transmute into absolute truth.
In Hinduism Lord Shiva is a supreme force, master, destroyer and spiritual guru. His existence and belief in Him, is an absolute truth for a a vast population. However, outside the context of Hinduism, He is known but not equated with the versions of deity that exist in other geographical or racially different spheres to that is in India.
Therefore if He, an absolute truth for a devout Hindu is not everyone's absolute truth, how can that truth be the absolute truth? Keep aside the known variabilities of humankind to choose to believe or not believe as they like, how would we know if the ones that live but cannot speak the human language agree to that being the absolute truth. And if they can't then it is likely not the absolute truth. To extend further, does the concept of God even exist for those who do not speak and are not human?
If we take Lord Shiva's help to answer my titular question what is probably a truth is that Lord Shiva lived as a man of supreme qualities approaching a widely agreed definition of Godhood, and that is worthy of respect and following for many including myself. The virtues of meditation, calmness, knowledge, sacrifice, material detachment, respect for all big, small, genders, living beings or inanimate objects shines through Shiva's perspective and for that a devout Hindu follows Him and wants to be Him. The God hood that appeared in Him, appeared at different times for different people in different places and was classified in different terms, but it probably shared the characteristics of Godhood.
Noting also that Godhood is a human concept or a human discovery, that may be accorded as an absolute truth within the human frame of reference.
Therefore is man is an image of God? And when man achieves the conditions of Godhood then at that point is God is in the image of man?
I suppose the answer to both is yes. But then have I also proved that if either is right there isn't such a thing as absolute truth?
If God is in the image of man then isn't God but an imagination of the man?
If Man is in the image of God, isn't that again a vain claim by man.
Would to be sacrilege to say God is an image of a mountain or a banyan tree or a koala bear?
In the search of absolute truth, my conclusion here is there isn't one. Let us say absolute truth may be found in a treatise written in one of the many human languages, but whichever it maybe it will be but a scripture of a man's perspective written by man or woman.
Therefore how can it be the absolute truth given an infinite world with infinite possibilities?
Could 4 legged beasts have a written or unwritten code or viewpoint on God? Could the ocean fish, the trees, or the many forms of nature?
Who can say, no, who can say yes? No one, therefore how can one reliably conclude on absolute truth. One cannot.
One can surmise, evidence within bounds of a frame of reference and convince through powers of persuasion, intellect and communication. However, what may come out as a widely spread view as an outcome of that does not transmute into absolute truth.
In Hinduism Lord Shiva is a supreme force, master, destroyer and spiritual guru. His existence and belief in Him, is an absolute truth for a a vast population. However, outside the context of Hinduism, He is known but not equated with the versions of deity that exist in other geographical or racially different spheres to that is in India.
Therefore if He, an absolute truth for a devout Hindu is not everyone's absolute truth, how can that truth be the absolute truth? Keep aside the known variabilities of humankind to choose to believe or not believe as they like, how would we know if the ones that live but cannot speak the human language agree to that being the absolute truth. And if they can't then it is likely not the absolute truth. To extend further, does the concept of God even exist for those who do not speak and are not human?
If we take Lord Shiva's help to answer my titular question what is probably a truth is that Lord Shiva lived as a man of supreme qualities approaching a widely agreed definition of Godhood, and that is worthy of respect and following for many including myself. The virtues of meditation, calmness, knowledge, sacrifice, material detachment, respect for all big, small, genders, living beings or inanimate objects shines through Shiva's perspective and for that a devout Hindu follows Him and wants to be Him. The God hood that appeared in Him, appeared at different times for different people in different places and was classified in different terms, but it probably shared the characteristics of Godhood.
Noting also that Godhood is a human concept or a human discovery, that may be accorded as an absolute truth within the human frame of reference.
Therefore is man is an image of God? And when man achieves the conditions of Godhood then at that point is God is in the image of man?
I suppose the answer to both is yes. But then have I also proved that if either is right there isn't such a thing as absolute truth?
