Advaita Vedanta: Qualified Non-Dualism

I have trouble with the Trinity...
So do a lot of people! I have some 'perspectives' on it, if that might help?

Yes, please...

I am a panentheist.
I have trouble with that! Seems like wanting the best of both worlds to me.

Why? What troubles? Why not have the best of both worlds, especially when integrating the religions?

I think God is impersonal (Father), personal (Son) and anonymous (Holy Spirit) ...

I think:
  • God within the Father is impersonal: Allaah. The One God.
  • The Father is personal, and we can "see" him as such, when we see the Son.
  • The Holy Spirit is God in the world, and can move us to self-knowing
  • The Son is the first step up the ladder and can protect us and guide us.

How about:
God the Father is
God the Son is the self-knowing of the Father
God the Holy Spirit is the communication of that self-knowing that leads to selfhood-as-such and beyond the self ...

I could go with this, but it does not specify impersonal/personal.
 
Q,
 
I would not say Parabrahman is the personal Godhead. Brahman is the Godhead. Parabrahman is beyond Brahman.
 
"Brahman is the impersonal God within which is creation AND Parabrahman."
 
--> I see it differently I do not see Brahman equal to Parabrahman.
 
I’m curious. I see no need to distinguish a personal God from an impersonal God. Is this an important distinction in Hinduism?
 
"Parabrahman is the Father in Christianity."
 
--> I disagree. Brahman is the Father in Christianity, Brahmān is the third person of the Trinity, but Parabrahman is beyond them all. Does that make sense?
 
"There are different meanings to Parabrahman."
 
--> I disagree. I see only one meaning, which is that Parabrahman is beyond Brahman. The very word Para means beyond.

Nick, you response has many resizings and such. I cannot deal with all that so I am unable to respond to individual points.

It seems you are using linguistics to define the term Parabrahman, rather that Shankara. Here is the wiki:

Para Brahman (IAST para-brahmaṇ) or Param Brahman (the Highest Brahman; not to be confused with brahmin, an Indic social class designation) - is a term often used by Vedantic philosophers as to the "attainment of the ultimate goal".[1] Adi Shankara has said that there is only one Supreme Para-Brahman and all the other deities are the forms and expansions of this Para-Brahman. It is believed that all Vaishnava and other schools attribute Personhood to this concept, as in Svayam bhagavan. Under terms of some schools of Vedanta, It has three modal aspects with a highest as Para Brahman or Lord Vishnu. This term is often quoted often used in relation to Vishnu as the ultimate goal of Vedanta. Even Shankara in his commentaries on Yoga Sutras stated, "Through AUM the Lord is met face to face", and "AUM is the Name of the Supreme Lord", thus attributing qualities to Supreme Brahman as a Person. One of the most prominent of recent Hindu philosophers, Dr. Radhakrishnan, after his alleged conversion to Gaudiya Vaishnavism in early 1960s, confirmed that this term meant Supreme God as a Person, the Absolute Truth.

So, the Supreme God is Brahman.

The Supreme God as a Person is Parabrahman.
 
What is the tradition with this interpretation? Are you claiming this is Vedanta? I have never ever heard of it. I ask out of interest. Honestly, if there are other monotheistic Hindu traditions, we should integrate them.

Nameste.


How could you NOT already beware of the "Virat-rupa", the "Vishva-rupa"?

Here is a picture of what I described, not a chart, so the contents are shown bu not labeled:

BTW, the lighted area in the center with a little cow-herd boy is little Krishna in his original-original form, on his abode known as Goloka Vrindavan.
That Goloka Vrindavan is situated outside the material cosmos in a sky that is known as 'self-luminuous' & known as the "spiritual sky".

It is called the 'spiritual sky' because it is illuminated by the effulgence [aka, brahmajyoti] that originates from Krishna smile & body. Everything in the 'spiritual sky' is composed of energy [shakti] that is known as "Sat-chit-ananda". All things in the 'spiritual sky' are engaged in inter-personal pastimes with Godhead [ala, nuetrality, servantship, fraternal, parental & marital loving relationships, aka, different 'rasas']

mahavishnu%5B1%5D.jpg


A POV from outside the material expansions of creation look thus:

The "spiritual sky" with the "spiritual planets" where Godhead is known as Narayana [where the denisens serve in the mood (rasa) of Citisen in-relations to the King] are shown.

There is a representation of Goloka Vrindavan, where Krishna lives in his original rasa, as a cowherd boy form ---this is where the other 4 rasas are to be experineced with Godhead's audience.

and then we see [it is written that the material energy fills 1/4 of the spiritual sky] Maha-Vishnu's plenary expansion as Karanadakashayi-Vishnu.

From bubbles eminating from Maha-Vishnu's body come countless "Brahmandas" [egg shaped orbs].

Within the "Brahmandas" the further expansions occur such as, Ksirodakashayi-Vishnu [param-atma's collective reservoir] and then fianlly, Garbhodakashayi-Vishnu, from the navel of whom Brahma is born. The Vedas are imparted to Brahma after his searching meditation ends. Brahma proceeds to populate and engineer the mundane material creation as we know it. It is written that when Brahma dies the brahmanda will come to an end. My question is: Does Brahma's death coincide with Maha-Vishnu breathing back-in when thus the Brahmandas are withdrawn back into Mahavishnu's being.

maha-vishnu-1.jpg
 
How could you NOT already beware of the "Virat-rupa", the "Vishva-rupa"?

Here is a picture of what I described, not a chart, so the contents are shown bu not labeled:

BTW, the lighted area in the center with a little cow-herd boy is little Krishna in his original-original form, on his abode known as Goloka Vrindavan.
That Goloka Vrindavan is situated outside the material cosmos in a sky that is known as 'self-luminuous' & known as the "spiritual sky".

It is called the 'spiritual sky' because it is illuminated by the effulgence [aka, brahmajyoti] that originates from Krishna smile & body. Everything in the 'spiritual sky' is composed of energy [shakti] that is known as "Sat-chit-ananda". All things in the 'spiritual sky' are engaged in inter-personal pastimes with Godhead [ala, nuetrality, servantship, fraternal, parental & marital loving relationships, aka, different 'rasas']

mahavishnu%5B1%5D.jpg


A POV from outside the material expansions of creation look thus:

The "spiritual sky" with the "spiritual planets" where Godhead is known as Narayana [where the denisens serve in the mood (rasa) of Citisen in-relations to the King] are shown.

There is a representation of Goloka Vrindavan, where Krishna lives in his original rasa, as a cowherd boy form ---this is where the other 4 rasas are to be experineced with Godhead's audience.

and then we see [it is written that the material energy fills 1/4 of the spiritual sky] Maha-Vishnu's plenary expansion as Karanadakashayi-Vishnu.

From bubbles eminating from Maha-Vishnu's body come countless "Brahmandas" [egg shaped orbs].

Within the "Brahmandas" the further expansions occur such as, Ksirodakashayi-Vishnu [param-atma's collective reservoir] and then fianlly, Garbhodakashayi-Vishnu, from the navel of whom Brahma is born. The Vedas are imparted to Brahma after his searching meditation ends. Brahma proceeds to populate and engineer the mundane material creation as we know it. It is written that when Brahma dies the brahmanda will come to an end. My question is: Does Brahma's death coincide with Maha-Vishnu breathing back-in when thus the Brahmandas are withdrawn back into Mahavishnu's being.

maha-vishnu-1.jpg

I do not know the answer to your question, but I do question Goloka.

In the Vedas, Upanisads and the 18 Maha-Puranas there is no mention of Goloka Vrindavan. This strongly argues against the authenticity of the claims that Goloka is the supreme abode as per Vedic shastras (scriptures). However, many sects within Hinduism propagate the ideology that Goloka is the highest abode, the most vocal of which is the gaudiya vaishnava sampradaya.
 
I do not know the answer to your question, but I do question Goloka.


In the Vedas, Upanisads and the 18 Maha-Puranas there is no mention of Goloka Vrindavan. This strongly argues against the authenticity of the claims that Goloka is the supreme abode as per Vedic shastras (scriptures). However, many sects within Hinduism propagate the ideology that Goloka is the highest abode, the most vocal of which is the gaudiya vaishnava sampradaya.

Well, somehow you are mis-guided and 101% wrong.
How did you manage to do that?

It's similar to saying:

In the world history books, Reanissance Libraries, and the Books of the Alexandra Library there is no mention of Bicycles nor Pencils.
This strongly argues against the authenticity of the claims that Bicycles nor Pencils is the supreme innovations of science (popular sriptures).

However, many sects within modern Pop-culture propagate the ideology that America is the highest abode, the most vocal of which is the those escaping tyrany.
Also try substituting my bold type words with:
Capitalism,
Free-enterprise,
democracy,
Women's Human Rights,
Child Labor Laws,
Union Labor Contracts,
Pro-life Laws,
Anti-Racketeering laws,
Free-press Laws
Freeedom of speech Laws.

But the important thing to remember when quoting Media sources is that most of the Journalists pay higher rent and higher taxes ---so they must report "Man bites Dog" stories 24/7 and then also charge a fee to read the scribes propaganda between adverts for dog food and diners where ex-cons get steady work.

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Goloka Vrindavan is revealed by Vyasa as the Conclusion of Vedic study and the reason for Vedic study every where throughout the Vedas, Upanisads and the 18 Maha-Puranas.

Oops, maybe you have to re-read the Texts again and then quote Vyasadeva inorder to know the prupose behind Vyasadeva's labor.

in Vyasadeva's service,
Bhaktajan
 
...I agree with Thomas' that christianity DOES have a "parabrahma", and not just a "brahma".

... I am also in agreement with Nick -- parabrahman is, supposedly, the impersonal brahman; the "beyond" (para) brahman; the "real deal", as opposed to the (in comparison), smaller deity...

...I disagree with Nick's comment that "... accented and unaccented forms of brahman refer to different portions of the same Brahma", though. It's just the para bit that differentiates.

Parabrahma is NOT a person. Parabrahma is not the daddy of brahma.

Parabrahma is "beyond". Like... the buddhist division of the two truths, yeah?

you have truth one- samvritti-satyam : (that which has some qualities of truth), here, brahma, and you have:
paramarthamsatyam: that which is beyond asking (about notions such as) truth", here, parabrahma.

In my opinion, Brahma is not the top dog. The God who gets the most face-time in the vedas and upanishads is Indra (thunder, rain, drinking soma). He, along with Surya (sun God), and Agni, (the sacred flame), were the Gods most pre-Vedic peoples sought to propitiate.

And for obvious, pastoral reasons...

Globally, when man moved from tiny villages and into large cities, the number of Gods diminishes. In the "west", the boulder of Christianity crushed the many diverse religious practises and beliefs that existed before Rome, and in India, the nature Gods, the natural forces and the many "household" devas; small Gods of hearth and home, were replaced by the caste system of Gods: Brahma at the top, (becoming the God of priests and intellectuals), Visnu (the God of commerce) and Siva (the god of magic/sex/drugs): today's trimurti.

The story of Brahma is that, he breathed himself into being. From the parabrahma. He... begot himself, just like in Christianity there was "the word", here, there was breath...

The... evolution of the world, was different. Traditionally, "space" is an ocean of milk, and various creatures (the first beings), churned this ocean, and eventually, we arrived here, tapping at the lil black plastic keys. Like all creation myths, this tale and those like them were a primitive man's attempt to make sense of something he didn't understand.

How we got here isn't really that important -- it's what we do while we're here that matters...

I also have to side with Qu'otar;

"In the Vedas, Upanisads and the 18 Maha-Puranas there is no mention of Goloka Vrindavan".

Krsna, 100 years ago, was worshipped by only a very small number of people as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in today's Vrndavana, and that is also where his only historical textual reference comes from. Most people, pre-ISKCON, who knew Krsna, saw Krnsa as a minor deity, and an emanation of Visnu. His brother, Balarama, was an emanation of Siva. It is thanks to Srila Prabhupada and his $40 dollars we have to thank for what we today know as Krsna Consciousness...

However, if we consider Brahma's original humble origins, we cannot deride Krsna for jockeying himself into position as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, can we?

bheda-bheda?
 
...I agree with Thomas' that christianity DOES have a "parabrahma", and not just a "brahma".

... I am also in agreement with Nick -- parabrahman is, supposedly, the impersonal brahman; the "beyond" (para) brahman; the "real deal", as opposed to the (in comparison), smaller deity...

...I disagree with Nick's comment that "... accented and unaccented forms of brahman refer to different portions of the same Brahma", though. It's just the para bit that differentiates.

Parabrahma is NOT a person. Parabrahma is not the daddy of brahma.

I am confused with your switching between brahma and brahman (parabrahma and parabrahman). I am talking about brahman. The Hindu monotheistic God as espoused by Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda. Unless there are other monotheistic Hindu traditions. If you are polytheistic, it is up to you to change to a monotheistic worldview to get in line with the Qu'ran.

It is clear to me that Parabrahman does not mean "beyond" Brahman, it means Brahman with attributes, with Personality. It is the personal form of Brahman. Brahman is impersonal, without attributes, and is the same as Allaah.
 
...I agree with Thomas' that christianity DOES have a "parabrahma", and not just a "brahma".

Brahma is the first born person & the engineer/architect/creator-commador & first progenitor of the Devas and henceforth all other species of living creators ---this is all occurring within the hollow core of the Brahmanda that our preceptable universe revolves in.

Literally, "Param"-brahma = "Supreme"-brahma

The appellation, "brahma" is a Job-Title. It is the post occupied, thus, with the title of Brahma comes the ascribed & obligated Dharma-task-duties.

... I am also in agreement with Nick -- parabrahman is, supposedly, the impersonal brahman; the "beyond" (para) brahman; the "real deal", as opposed to the (in comparison), smaller deity...

Parambrahma is the Personal "source" of all things Brahma/brahman/brahmana/brahmin/braminical/brahmajyoti etc.

Diety refers to Parambrahma.

Brahma's personal children & his grandchildren populated the Universe 36,000 kalpas ago**

[**18,000 x 2 Kalpas/Day (night & day)]

All Brahma's kids and grand kids are what everyone talks about being mentioned in the Rg Veda ---"Indra" too is a title. "Indra" is NOT a personal name.

The post of "Indra" has been occupied by much more than 18,000 different persons. This occurs during the passage of each Kalpa [aka, "Day of Brahma", A day of Brahma is extremely long in comparison with our terrestrial-level of the Cosmos and thus a quicker solar year than the celeistial upper planetary systems of the Devas etal].

Our terrestrial are in a slum area of the cosmos. Any even Kali-yuga's effects are shared with the residents of these "Heavenly" stratum of pious souls . . . until their respective individual good-karma last. Samsara affects all that are 'born' in the material world.


...I disagree with Nick's comment that "... accented and unaccented forms of brahman refer to different portions of the same Brahma", though. It's just the para bit that differentiates.

Param = "Supreme". It's a prefix.

Parabrahma is NOT a person. Parabrahma is not the daddy of brahma.

Param Brahman—the Supreme Brahman, the Personality of Godhead, Lord Çré Kåñëa.
Param dhäma—the eternal planets of the spiritual world.
Parama-puruñärtha—the supreme goal of life.
Parama-vidvän—the most learned scholar.
Paramaà padam—the Lord’s transcendental abode.
Paramahaàsa bäbäjé—he who is on the highest platform of spiritual asceticism and who has given up all social and caste designations. The only designation maintained by him is that of being a tiny servant of the unlimited Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Paramahaàsa-öhäkura—one who acts as an äcärya, directly presenting Lord Kåñëa by spreading His name and fame.
Paramahaàsa—a topmost, God-realized, swanlike devotee of the Supreme Lord; highest stage of sannyäsa.
Paramätmä—the Supersoul, the localized aspect Viñëu expansion of the Supreme Lord residing in the heart of each embodied living entity and pervading all of material nature.
Parameçvara—the supreme controller, Lord Kåñëa.
Paramparä—the disciplic succession through which spiritual knowledge is transmitted by bona-fide spiritual masters.

Parabrahma is "beyond". Like... the buddhist division of the two truths, yeah?

you have truth one- samvritti-satyam : (that which has some qualities of truth), here, brahma, and you have:
paramarthamsatyam: that which is beyond asking (about notions such as) truth", here, parabrahma.

If you say so. I'll have to take your testimony as erudite. As long as you are quoting precisely the source you have learnt it from, then it's genuinely good data to know.

In my opinion, Brahma is not the top dog. The God who gets the most face-time in the vedas and upanishads is Indra (thunder, rain, drinking soma). He, along with Surya (sun God), and Agni, (the sacred flame), were the Gods most pre-Vedic peoples sought to propitiate.

A bit of Biography of Lord Brahma, the grandfather of all the devas and daityas, suras and asuras, the first progenitor:
Brahmä—the first created living being and secondary creator of the material universe. Directed by Lord Viñëu, he creates all life forms in the universes. He also rules the mode of passion. Twelve of his hours equals 4,320,000,000 earth-years, and his life span is more than 311 trillion of our years.



Indra is a Job-Title. Here is a brief bio of the present Indra:
Indra—the chief demigod of heaven and presiding deity of rain, and the father of Arjuna. He is the son of Aditi.

Surya is a Job-Title. Here is a brief bio of the present Surya:
Sürya—the sun-god, who became the father of Karëa. He is said to be the right eye of the Supreme Lord.

Agni is a Job-Title. Here is a brief bio of the present Agni:
Agni—the demigod who controls fire. He took the form of a brähmaëa and begged charity from Lord Kåñëa and Arjuna. He then consumed the Khäëòava forest.

These Job-Titles have been occupied by others in past kalpas.
The stories & histories found within the Vedic literatures record events in various epochs. BTW, Brahma is approx 50 years old now ---out of his scheduled 100 year life span [Brahma's solar years are vastly longer]. Brahma's abode is the highest available in the Brahmanda. Above him is the roof of the Brahmanda ---and the base of Ksirodakasayi-vishnu's abode directly above.

And for obvious, pastoral reasons...

FYI: Pastures are designed for bull dung.

{Hey just nickname me, 'the clerk'}

Globally, when man moved from tiny villages and into large cities, the number of Gods diminishes. In the "west", the boulder of Christianity crushed the many diverse religious practises and beliefs that existed before Rome, and in India, the nature Gods, the natural forces and the many "household" devas; small Gods of hearth and home, were replaced by

What happens in Western civilisation occurs after the ancient world was despersed. Western civilisation is deep and getting deeper each generation into Kali Yuga.

The good news is the Meek will inherit the earth when the pygmies rule and lizards are tall as buildings. Veal meats of all sorts will be the delicacies of the idiocracies enmass.


the caste system of Gods: Brahma at the top, (becoming the God of priests and intellectuals), Visnu (the God of commerce) and Siva (the god of magic/sex/drugs): today's trimurti.


The Devas are all cousins. Aristocratic personages.

Your rendering sounds so "bogey-yogis from the 60's . . . Man!" to me.

The story of Brahma is that, he breathed himself into being.

FYI: Your brief descriptions are lacking in all the 'god-is-in-the-details' details.

From the parabrahma. He... begot himself, just like in Christianity there was "the word", here, there was breath...

Brahma was born of Vishnu. Brahma is known as Svayambhu ---self-born. Brahma is known as "Un-born". Brahma is known as "self-born" ---he had no parents.

The... evolution of the world, was different. Traditionally, "space" is an ocean of milk, and various creatures (the first beings), churned this ocean, and eventually, we arrived here, tapping at the lil black plastic keys. Like all creation myths, this tale and those like them were a primitive man's attempt to make sense of something he didn't understand.

Primitive man never existed in the Vedic Literatures [except in the netherlands & wilderness & jungles] in the vedas we find the descriptions of the golden ages of Humanity and thus the pastimes and lifetime biographies of Sage-Kings, Mystic Swamis, Sages saints, renigade Monarchs, visitations from devas & asuras and sorts of historical timelimes of pastimes terrestrial and celetial ---all among the children of Brahma.This all has occured within the confines of the Material World we are all mutually living.

These devas too experience birth & death & personality ego traits and karmic reactions etc etc etcjust as we peons do.

How we got here isn't really that important -- it's what we do while we're here that matters...

I also have to side with Qu'otar;

"In the Vedas, Upanisads and the 18 Maha-Puranas there is no mention of Goloka Vrindavan".

The Summon bonum of Vyasadeva's mission for adventing as the complier of the Vedas was to reveal the Non-materialistic path of liberation. That revelation is Krishna.
Krishna's name, fame, form, personality, paraphenalia, entourage & pastimes is all one needs to know about all the Vedas entoto.

Goloka Vrindavan:
Goloka Våndävana (Kåñëaloka)—the highest spiritual planet in the kingdom of God, Lord Kåñëa’s personal abode.

---this is all one needs to know about all the Vedas entoto.

Evidently, You must read the Vedas, Upanisads and the 18 Maha-Puranas again. Take your time . . . I will await news of your enlightening findings.

Vyasadeva complied all the Vedas.
Vyasadeva wrote Vedanta-Sutra.
Finally, Vyasadeva wrote his comentary on Vedanta-Sutra, Bhagavata-purana.

Since Vyasa wrote from memory the Histories that must be heard from sober authorities ---so Vyasa's smriti begets our shurti.


Krsna, 100 years ago, was worshipped by only a very small number of people as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in today's Vrndavana, and that is also where his only historical textual reference comes from. Most people, pre-ISKCON, who knew Krsna, saw Krnsa as a minor deity, and an emanation of Visnu. His brother, Balarama, was an emanation of Siva.

May I point out on blaring fact: Srila Prabhupada showed up in the West 47years ago [1965] --- 100 years ago was 1912.

In 1912 Paramahansa Yogananda knew who Krishna was.
In 1912 no respected swami dare travel to the land of melechas ---especially where the clouds of bad karma alway rained heavily.


It is thanks to Srila Prabhupada and his $40 dollars we have to thank for what we today know as Krsna Consciousness...

Prabhupad was extended welcomes and assistence from pious hindus in 1965.

How could a 5 foot 5 inch 69 year old man inspire western youth to become orthodox brahmacaris and dedicated bhakti yogis who read the Bhagavad-gita with old school scholarship?

The mandacity of Hindu Swamis is uncanny!

However, if we consider Brahma's original humble origins, we cannot deride Krsna for jockeying himself into position as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, can we?

bheda-bheda?

Yes I speculate here but I think you may have assessed your rasa correctly: bheda-bheda.


iti çuçruma dhéräëäà
ye nas tad vicacakñire (end of mantra ten of Isha Upanishad)
{not to be confused with school yard talk},
Bhaktajan
 
I disagree. Brahman is the Father in Christianity, Brahmān is the third person of the Trinity, but Parabrahman is beyond them all. Does that make sense?
No.

Please stick to Theosophy, you're just spreading misinformation when you offer comments about Christianity.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot
I disagree. Brahman is the Father in Christianity, Brahmān is the third person of the Trinity, but Parabrahman is beyond them all. Does that make sense?

To put it right:

1] Brahman = The space
2] Param-atama = God Localised as supersoul along side each individual soul
3] Bhagavan = The original persoange of Godhead, full in all oppulences.

The above three are the three progressive realisations attained in classical Hindu tradition.
Also, "beyond these 3-aspects of God's Omnipresence ---there are no other things to be accounted for. These three catagories of Godhead's expansion of creation are encompassed all things of existance".

FYI:
1] Brahma = 1st Born being in this material cosmos --Duties: creator/progenitor

2] Vishnu = Plenary Expansion of Godhead that allows the material cosmos to rest and transpire --Duties: Maintain Creation [not a born being].

3] Shiva = 5th son Born of Brahma --Duties: desolution of the cosmos/progenitor

The spirit soul is living either in the Material cosmos ---or--- the soul is living outside the Material cosmos.

God lives outside the Material cosmos.

As of this writting we are NOW living dee inside the Material cosmos.
 
Why? What troubles? Why not have the best of both worlds, especially when integrating the religions?
I don't think you can integrate religions at any meaningful depth. And why would you? each religion, if it is what it purports to be, is complete and entire in itself ... it doesn't need integration, a process which can only over-complicate, confound and confuse. It's been tried, and it always ends in a Tower of Babel scenario.

You can draw outward correspondences, but that's because religion addresses man, and man is man everywhere ...

The theist/panthesit/panentheist debate is over the definition of God. Christianity's definition is founded on the Hebrew Scriptures and the data of Revelation in Christ, considered in the light of the Greek philosophic tradition. It's quite rigorously precise.

I would say that anything created is, by that very fact, not God and, as creation is created, it is not God.

Also, God being Absolute, Infinite and All-Perfect, nothing can be added to, nothing can be taken away, nothing can be changed, nothing altered, God does not increase nor decrease ... therefore creation, which is subject to contingency, growth and decay, coming and going, etc, is not divine according to that definition, and does not impact on God in the slightest.

God can be all in all, through and through, and is Immanently present to all creation all the time, but He is not the same stuff as creation is, nor is creation the same stuff God is ... so I think 'panentheism' is a bit of a fudge that relies on indistinct definitions as far as Christianity is concerned. In polytheist religions, it may well be different.

I think:
God within the Father is impersonal: Allaah. The One God.
But He makes His will known to man, and man can communicate with Him (if not, surely 'Allah' is a delusion ... which it is not?)
The Father is personal...
Well hang on ... now you're drawing distinctions within the Godhead, I think, and Christianity does not hold to that. God is One, God is not a composite, and God is simple.
'Personal' and 'impersonal' are human determinations.

and we can "see" him as such, when we see the Son.
True.

The Holy Spirit is God in the world, and can move us to self-knowing
We would shake our heads on that one, as it suggests a mode of God, and moreover is a cosmological determination. The Holy Spirit is God, before the world ever was — God is not Trinity from the human perspective, but rather from an act of self-disclosure.

The Son is the first step up the ladder and can protect us and guide us.
The Holy Spirit leads us to the Son.

I could go with this, but it does not specify impersonal/personal.
I think this debate is often conducted under a misunderstanding of terms.

The first question is whether there can be any communication between God and man at all. Deists, for example, would say no. God created the cosmos, walked away, and has nothing more to do with it.

The Abrahamic tradition has God deeply involved with His creation. The question then is, how can God communicate His will and intent to man?

First, by signs. The Laws of Nature are His, after all.

But it is axiomatic that He wants to be known, and what greater dignity can a Deity confer on a created nature than to communicate to that nature as that nature. So God comes to man in a way that man knows, and knows better than any other ... as a person, like himself.

If God is impersonal, then God is either deficient, lacking the qualities that define a person, as Boethius said, for example: "An individual substance of a rational nature"

Or God is simply, and utterly, transcendent, beyond person, indeed beyond being.

It seems to me that the names or classifications of the Divine as expressed in the Vedic Tradition, Brahma, Ishvara ... are human classifications imposed from without.

For this reason they do not apply in Christianity, as we do not classify God in that way. To apply them to Christianity is to misunderstand Christianity.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is Meta-Cosmic. It is not three classifications of God, but rather describes a process within God, the Life of the Unmoved Mover. The Three Persons of the Trinity are accorded the designation 'person' only analogously, for God transcends 'person' and 'being'.

There is a Greek philosophical classification, for example: Arche Anarchos (The Principle without Principle) is the Father, Arche (Principle (cf John 1:1)) is the Son ... but that's about as far as we like to complicate it.

The meta-personal discussion of God takes two streams. God as manifest as an Immanent Presence we class as cataphatic theology, which makes positive statements — God is Good, God is Love, and the like. This is the most commonly-met aspect of the Christian Tradition.

God as Transcendent can only be spoken of in apophatic (negative) terms, such as 'Ineffible' or 'Divine Darkness' and 'Beyond Being' — this theology is more discreet, but it is there, and unless you've had it really well explained, you're inclined to get it wrong.

There's much tosh spoken about what Meister Eckhart is supposed to have meant, for example. Another piece of nonsense, for example, says that the Christian mystics outgrew the Tradition ...

God bless

Thomas
 
I am truly sorry this thread died. My fault for poor response, no doubt. My apologies. I will try to resurrect for those willing to continue.

I must say I have gotten the book recommended to me titled "Christianity and the Doctrine of Non-Dualism". I am into the first chapter, in anticipation.

Thanks!
 
--> I would not say Parabrahman is the personal Godhead. Brahman is the Godhead. Parabrahman is beyond Brahman.

--> I see it differently I do not see Brahman equal to Parabrahman.

--> I’m curious. I see no need to distinguish a personal God from an impersonal God. Is this an important distinction in Hinduism?

"Parabrahman is the Father in Christianity."

--> I disagree. Brahman is the Father in Christianity, Brahmān is the third person of the Trinity, but Parabrahman is beyond them all. Does that make sense?

We have 6 (8) terms we are dealing with, which makes it complex. I'd like to dive into them:
  1. Personal God: an Anthropomorphic God as a representation in the world as an active principle and whom we can direct our prayers too. In the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, he acknowledges that some people need a personal God to devote to and some need an impersonal God to conceptualize. The personal God seems useful to Bhaktic devotees and the impersonal God is useful to jnanic knowledge seekers. Both can be used at once by the same person.
  2. Impersonal God: see above. It is understood that God as inactive is closer to the right conceptualization. This is the impersonal God.
  3. Godhead: the Trinity treated as unity. Is it personal or impersonal? Or both?
  4. Parabrahman: is it better to understand "Param" as "Supreme" or "with attributes and personality"? There does seem to be multiple understandings in different traditions within Hinduism. From my reading of Vedanta, the term never really came up. A more used term is Ishvara and Atman, from my readings. I have never read Sankara directly. My understanding was as the personal God.
  5. Brahman: my understanding was the impersonal God: Infinite, Absolute, Inactive, No form, ...
  6. Brahmān: Always figured this was the correct spelling of Brahman and that they were the same.
  7. Ishvara: the Lord, equivalent in my book to Parabrahman. The active, personal God.
  8. Atman: the egoless self--identity that approached Ishvara.

"There are different meanings to Parabrahman."

--> I disagree. I see only one meaning, which is that Parabrahman is beyond Brahman. The very word Para means beyond.

The wiki talks of different understandings of Parabrahman between Vedanta, Vishnu and Shakti traditions. I cannot claim to be familiar with all of them. I have steered clear of non-Vedantic traditions due to wanting to maintain monotheistic orientation.
 
Oops, maybe you have to re-read the Texts again and then quote Vyasadeva inorder to know the prupose behind Vyasadeva's labor.

My exposure is through Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda, who were rooted from Sankara works. Although I have read a little of Vyasa, is seems quite polytheistic to me.

Of course, the Bhagavad Gita refers to these other Gods, sub-Gods to Brahman (angels by any other term)...
 
How could you NOT already beware of the "Virat-rupa", the "Vishva-rupa"?
*shrug* :)

Here is a picture of what I described, not a chart, so the contents are shown bu not labeled:

BTW, the lighted area in the center with a little cow-herd boy is little Krishna in his original-original form, on his abode known as Goloka Vrindavan.
That Goloka Vrindavan is situated outside the material cosmos in a sky that is known as 'self-luminuous' & known as the "spiritual sky".

It is called the 'spiritual sky' because it is illuminated by the effulgence [aka, brahmajyoti] that originates from Krishna smile & body. Everything in the 'spiritual sky' is composed of energy [shakti] that is known as "Sat-chit-ananda". All things in the 'spiritual sky' are engaged in inter-personal pastimes with Godhead [ala, nuetrality, servantship, fraternal, parental & marital loving relationships, aka, different 'rasas']

mahavishnu%5B1%5D.jpg

I really like the ideas of satchitananda and this other idea I have heard of but not known the name of as "rasas". The observation that one's understanding of God, through one's relationship with him and/or her, can provide the relationships of love one may bee missing in the real world creating a complete person of the heart, is a fine idea. It frees and heals the heart .

A POV from outside the material expansions of creation look thus:

The "spiritual sky" with the "spiritual planets" where Godhead is known as Narayana [where the denisens serve in the mood (rasa) of Citisen in-relations to the King] are shown.

There is a representation of Goloka Vrindavan, where Krishna lives in his original rasa, as a cowherd boy form ---this is where the other 4 rasas are to be experineced with Godhead's audience.

and then we see [it is written that the material energy fills 1/4 of the spiritual sky] Maha-Vishnu's plenary expansion as Karanadakashayi-Vishnu.

From bubbles eminating from Maha-Vishnu's body come countless "Brahmandas" [egg shaped orbs].

Within the "Brahmandas" the further expansions occur such as, Ksirodakashayi-Vishnu [param-atma's collective reservoir] and then fianlly, Garbhodakashayi-Vishnu, from the navel of whom Brahma is born. The Vedas are imparted to Brahma after his searching meditation ends. Brahma proceeds to populate and engineer the mundane material creation as we know it. It is written that when Brahma dies the brahmanda will come to an end. My question is: Does Brahma's death coincide with Maha-Vishnu breathing back-in when thus the Brahmandas are withdrawn back into Mahavishnu's being.

maha-vishnu-1.jpg

I like to think that all the bubbles of Brahmandas are the hook each person has in their heart to find a connection to Christ/Krishna. And so the Many can become the One in collective consciousness.
 
Q,

You may be interested in equivalent terms for Brahman, Parabrahman, etc., between the major religions.

http://users.ez2.net/nick29/theosophy/tabulation.htm

But if you think that Parabrahman does not mean beyond Brahman, this chart may not be of interest to you.

Please note that the term Atman does not appear in this chart and refers to something else.

Thanks for the link. Due to the variety of Hindu philosophies (I believe there are 6 schools of thought) your record titled Hinduism does not match Vedanta, to my knowledge.

Interestingly, the wiki page on Vedanta got updated on the 17th of Sept, and one section that was greatly expanded was the Philosophy section...great news since that is its core.

Within Advaita Vedanta Philosophy section, there are links to Ontology: the Nature of Being, which discusses what we are talking about, and Anthropology: the Nature of Man. There is no mention of Parabrahman. I wonder how you would map this to your table.
 
Q,

You may be interested in equivalent terms for Brahman, Parabrahman, etc., between the major religions.

http://users.ez2.net/nick29/theosophy/tabulation.htm

But if you think that Parabrahman does not mean beyond Brahman, this chart may not be of interest to you.

Please note that the term Atman does not appear in this chart and refers to something else.

Could you talk a little about the Secret Doctrine's terminology? My first exposure to these ideas (although I have read a bit of Annie Besant; especially liked Esoteric Christianity):
  1. Absolute
  2. 1st Logos
  3. 2nd Logos
  4. 3rd Logos
  5. 7 Dhyani-Chohans

Thanks!
 
Thanks for the link. Due to the variety of Hindu philosophies (I believe there are 6 schools of thought) your record titled Hinduism does not match Vedanta, to my knowledge.

Let me retract the last bit. I have no idea, but the idea of Brahma and the 7 Rishis are not central to the ontology of Vedanta, I believe...of course, my readings have focused on the One God, Brahman, and not so much the manifestation of the One into the Many, although that is an area of great interest to me, across the board.
 
Back
Top