That single syllable, "God," gets a lot of use. In Indian philosophy, Jainism and the Hindu Samkhya system are atheist. Both posit beginningless and endless souls and matter without a creator. The Yoga system accepts Samkhya metaphysics but also catalogues meditative practices, including devotional theism. In order to fit such devotion into an essentially atheist system, the Yoga Sutras define God as a special kind of soul permanently free from reincarnation but not a creator. The word "God" can also be applied to the object of mystical experience even when that object is not regarded as a transcendent person.
Although Anderson's Fr. Axor seeks the Universal Incarnation, maybe Hinduism or Buddhism would be better equipped to incorporate or at least to cope with the multiplicity of beliefs discovered in Anderson's Technic History?
6 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
No, for God to "be" God at all, He would also have to be the Creator.
Hinduism I dismiss as merely the last real pagan religion in the world today. A barbaric and crude/cruel religion (think of the savage caste system) the Indians would do well to renounce, converting to Christianity.
Ad astra! Sean
Just going out to a meeting.
Sean,
People used loaded words in different senses. Meanings are changeable and contextual. It is pointless to insist that only one meaning is valid.
One person intuits transcendence and calls it "God," identifying it with the Biblical deity. Another person intuits the same transcendence and does not call it anything or maybe recognises it as what other people experience and call "God" although he does not agree that it corresponds to the deity who visited ten plagues on Egypt, parted the Red Sea etc.
We need to agree on what we are or are not talking about whatever words we apply to it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I do believe only one definition should apply to many words--else communication would become impossible.
And I don't believe those other conceptions of "God" you listed are correct.
I so agree on the need to clearly understand what we are talking or not talking about.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course you think that conceptions other than yours are incorrect! The only point here is that there are different conceptions.
There is no one meaning of a word. What is the difference between the "bark" of a tree and the "bark" of a dog? The contexts of their use and their positions in that sentence. We understand each other without needing to insist on only one meaning for "bark."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I only said many, not all words, will have only one definition. I had words like "yes," "no," "one," "two," "good," "bad," etc., in mind.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment