01-26-2007, 05:58 PM
Huskyji
Here is a post from Jakob on a yahoogroup where he discusses some of what you have raised.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenIn...ss/message/3112
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dear Sunil,
Several problems are involved here. On the one hand, the
conceptualization of God as an eternal person whose will has created
and governs the universe needs to be taken very strictly. On the
other hand, there are problems in the translation of texts from the
Indian traditions.
1. What does it mean to say that God is a person? Well, there are
different philosophical views on the notion of person, but they
generally agree upon two things: (a) a person has personal identity,
that is, can be recognized over time and space to be one and the
same person; (b) a person is an agent who has a will, plans or
purposes upon which he or she can act. An eternal person, then,
remains one and the same person forever and must have some kind of
eternal plan.
2. The universe is everything that was, is and will be. If one says
that God is a person whose will creates and governs the universe,
this means that everything that ever happened, that happens now and
that will happen in the future is His will. There is no possibility
for Him to commit certain actions intentionally, while other actions
are 'play' or 'unintentional'. Everything He does expresses His will
perfectly and that is what the universe is.
3. Taking these properties of God, it becomes clear that no being in
the Indian traditions is God. Naturally, certain sentences in some
texts can be translated in such a way as to correspond vaguely to
this notion of God. But where we to analyze these beings
conceptually, it would turn out that they cannot have these
properties. This prediction can be made with quite some certainty,
because if there were God in these traditions, their structure would
necessarily have been that of an explanatorily intelligible account.
That is, these traditions would have to be obsessed with the plan or
will of God and conveyed to humanity what its part is in that plan.
They would then consist of sets of doctrines which can be either
true or false. Consequently, there would have been conflicts over
orthodoxy and religious truth. Since all these things are not the
case in the Indian traditions, we can safely conclude that they do
not have this notion of God. No matter how some Sanskrit sentences
may have been translated in the past.
Yours,
Jakob
(A nice summary of the question of personhood can be found at
this URL:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_...hat_is_a_Person )<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is a post from Jakob on a yahoogroup where he discusses some of what you have raised.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenIn...ss/message/3112
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dear Sunil,
Several problems are involved here. On the one hand, the
conceptualization of God as an eternal person whose will has created
and governs the universe needs to be taken very strictly. On the
other hand, there are problems in the translation of texts from the
Indian traditions.
1. What does it mean to say that God is a person? Well, there are
different philosophical views on the notion of person, but they
generally agree upon two things: (a) a person has personal identity,
that is, can be recognized over time and space to be one and the
same person; (b) a person is an agent who has a will, plans or
purposes upon which he or she can act. An eternal person, then,
remains one and the same person forever and must have some kind of
eternal plan.
2. The universe is everything that was, is and will be. If one says
that God is a person whose will creates and governs the universe,
this means that everything that ever happened, that happens now and
that will happen in the future is His will. There is no possibility
for Him to commit certain actions intentionally, while other actions
are 'play' or 'unintentional'. Everything He does expresses His will
perfectly and that is what the universe is.
3. Taking these properties of God, it becomes clear that no being in
the Indian traditions is God. Naturally, certain sentences in some
texts can be translated in such a way as to correspond vaguely to
this notion of God. But where we to analyze these beings
conceptually, it would turn out that they cannot have these
properties. This prediction can be made with quite some certainty,
because if there were God in these traditions, their structure would
necessarily have been that of an explanatorily intelligible account.
That is, these traditions would have to be obsessed with the plan or
will of God and conveyed to humanity what its part is in that plan.
They would then consist of sets of doctrines which can be either
true or false. Consequently, there would have been conflicts over
orthodoxy and religious truth. Since all these things are not the
case in the Indian traditions, we can safely conclude that they do
not have this notion of God. No matter how some Sanskrit sentences
may have been translated in the past.
Yours,
Jakob
(A nice summary of the question of personhood can be found at
this URL:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_...hat_is_a_Person )<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->