Jaldhar H. Vyas
jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM
Mon Jun 24 17:59:18 CDT 2002
On Sat, 22 Jun 2002, Stephanie Stean wrote:
> Understanding all that has been said, why would people maintain Advaita
> Vedanta as being theistic?
> Theistic has God inherently involved in it, and God is not Brahman. God
> signifies personal deity or being of some kind (English definition).
> So, in many of the translations, God seems to be an insufficient and
> misleading word to use for Brahman. Is God used because of lack of a
> better term? What do you mean when you use the word God, especially from
> Advaitin perspective?
This is the peril of translation which is why I prefer using Sanskrit
terms as much as possible. But God does suffice to express the sense of
Brahman as the cause of the universe and as an object of adoration.
> Jaldhar asked, (probably for me to ponder the question), What do you expect
> God to be? I have a very clear answer to this. And my answer does not
> incorporate a God of any sort. Because the word God, never comes to mind at
> all. The reason I bring this up is because, from what I've read thus far,
> moksha breaks one past the barrier of personal anything (concepts and
> dualities) and a "God" no longer would exist.
The key thing is "God" would no longer exist _as_a_seperate_entity_. Like
when you think about "Stephanie Stean" you include your hands, feet et. in
the definition right? In some contexts you mention them seperately but
most they are all subsumed in the sense "I" without a second thought. The
jnani simply extends this natural feeling until it includes everything.
Thus he can talk about God yet he feels this God is no different to him
than his own hand.
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list