The Christian philosophical theologian Paul Tillich argued that God should not be considered as a contingent being, nor as a group of such beings, but as the ground, power, and structure of being, namely, being-itself. Do you agree or disagree and why?
From "A New Approach to the Vedas" by Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy:
Asat = Non-being (avyakta = unmanifest) + Being (vyakt-avyakta); Sat = Existence (vyakta = manifest); Asat + Sat = Brahman (satya = authentic, true).
---
Existence is material/substantial/embodied/real (murta), furnished with attributes/string/cord (saguna), and mortal (martya).
Non-existence is immaterial/insubstantial/unembodied/unreal (amurta), without attributes/string/cord (nirguna), and not mortal (amartya); hence, non-existence can be defined only by negation (a-), i.e., by what it is not.
Irrespective of Caste ,Creed & Religion whatever may be our belief regarding God or in other sense almighty should not be changed as we have to keep our train of our mind in our accepted mode for which we have learnt in our childhood as a matter of our religious code , we should not change it .
With this we all are born as human beings & our mind remains the greatest guideline for our action ,it is this for which what type & sort of human beings we are we can know & also to establish our behavior & code of conduct only thru our mind .
We should not forget that our mind have both positive & negative traits for which our action of life depends . In this line whatever the theory for our life we wish to establish our moral action is thru our mind code of conduct & behavior which we can learn by our experience & methods & practice which we are following .
This is my personal opinion
From "A New Approach to the Vedas" by Ananda Kentish Coomaraswamy:
Asat = Non-being (avyakta = unmanifest) + Being (vyakt-avyakta); Sat = Existence (vyakta = manifest); Asat + Sat = Brahman (satya = authentic, true).
---
Existence is material/substantial/embodied/real (murta), furnished with attributes/string/cord (saguna), and mortal (martya).
Non-existence is immaterial/insubstantial/unembodied/unreal (amurta), without attributes/string/cord (nirguna), and not mortal (amartya); hence, non-existence can be defined only by negation (a-), i.e., by what it is not.
Thanks to Anirbid, Rohit, and Martin for your insights! I especially appreciate the Hindu perspective.
Dear Kirk,
The determination and phrasing of God cannot be only an approach. I mean a continual approach of which even the collective mind of humanity or religious communities cannot have strictly scientific –measurable - evidences. Thus, it is difficult to be oriented in philosophical/theological issues.
Please read my all articles and the article summary of The complex quantum state of consciousness-IOSR submitted to the FQXi essay competition in the link below.
Thanks
Well Prof MacGregor , I think in my religion it is considered as "being-itself" , the reason being we account to nature and are free to see forms of nature ....
I agree with your considerations that God is a Self in Himself
Estoy de acuerdo con sus consideraciones en relación a que Dios es un Ser en Si Mismo
"Before creatures were, God was not God, albeit he was Godhead." (Meister Eckhart)
---
Non-existence is prior to existence. Non-being (imageless, amurta) is prior to being.
About the Self:
"He is the unseen Seer, the unheard Hearer, the unthought Thinker, the uncomprehended Comprehensor, other than whom there is no seer, no hearer, no thinker, no comprehensor. He is your spirit (atman), the Inner Controller, the Immortal." (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad)
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy