Richard, In my opinion, we can make a lot of speculations about the nature of the divine. But, as humans, we do not have the same capacity to understand the mystery of creation (or even before it) as the divine. I find Thomas Merton's words to be practical when he said that God is infinite and at the same time He or She is NOT.
--- In [email protected], "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > John wrote: > > As an extension of Chopra's analogy, we can say > > that if one has not reached cosmic consciousness, > > then the phenomenal world is an illusion or Maya > > due to the effects of the gunas. > > > The point I was trying to make, John, is that if > Purusha, the Transcendental Person, is part and > parcel of the relative world of prakriti and subject > to the three gunas, then, according to Shankara, > the highest God, Creator Brahm, is just an illusion > - a result of Maya, thus not real. If God is an > illusion and not real, then there is no Transcendental > Person in the absolute sense. You must admit that this > is a significant conundrum and probably the reason why > all the Upanishadic commentators ascribed to either > dualism, quasi-dulaism, or qualified dualsism - > Ramanuja, Madhva, Vallaba, Nimbarka, and Chaitanya, > instead of adwaita. While all these acharyas were > transcendentalists, they did not agree with Shankara > concerning the Absolute nature of the Purusha. In > fact, as pointed out by Vaj, the notion that Brahman > is an unmanifest and impersonal Absolute without > attributes is almost pure Middle Way Buddhism > (Madyamika). It is very difficult to relate on a > personal level to a non-person and at the same time > call that person God, who is obviously a Person, > by definition, according to the Upanishads. >
