"God", not my cup of tea

[User14]

I view my favorite deities as entirely God without being the entirety of God, which corresponds well enough with the Western, Christian notion of the differents Persons of the Trinity being fully God but not, on their own, the fullness of God. But other people may have different views that aren't as congruent with anything familar to people in English-speaking countries. So maybe for them, "God" isn't a useful word to use.

 

[ajay0]

Even if one says that i use the word "God", to mean Ishvar, I would say why don't just use Ishvar?

And its not just the word that does not sit well with me, it is the entire concept/history/theology that comes with it, i don't see it as having any relation to what Hindu Dharmah is teaching.

I don't know if this makes sense to anyone, I'm just ranting away. Feel free to ignore

Ishvar is synonymous with a monotheistic God as projected in the Hindu sects Arya Samaj, Sikh Dharma,Lingayats and Kabir panthis which is not associated with any human figure or deity . That would probably be equable to Jehovah or Ahura Mazda or Allah in Hinduism.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I view my favorite deities as entirely God without being the entirety of God, which corresponds well enough with the Western, Christian notion of the differents Persons of the Trinity being fully God but not, on their own, the fullness of God. But other people may have different views that aren't as congruent with anything familar to people in English-speaking countries. So maybe for them, "God" isn't a useful word to use.

What do you mean by "God",?

With the explanation you provide about your belief, would you think then that Kali Mata will not be the "Complete", God?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Ishvar is synonymous with a monotheistic God as projected in the Hindu sects Arya Samaj, Sikh Dharma,Lingayats and Kabir panthis which is not associated with any human figure or deity . That would probably be equable to Jehovah or Ahura Mazda or Allah in Hinduism.

No, IMO Ishvar is not equivalent to the Abrahamic notion of Monotheism, because it does not exclude the existence of the Eternal Atman, Karma, Dharmah, PunaGanma, Deva and Devi nor Murthi Puja, Ishvara may not have a specific Murthi but there is no taboo (Or commandment from Ishvar) in worshiping Ishvar through a Murthi.

That is the difference, so if anyone is talking about "God", but is actually describing Ishvar, this is where i would interject and say, why not just say Ishvar instead of God.

 

[User14]

What do you mean by "God",?

With the explanation you provide about your belief, would you think then that Kali Mata will not be the "Complete", God?

God is the totality of existence. He's all good things, manifest or unmanifest, limited or unlimited. Technically, since I think all things are good (it would take a while for me to explain what I mean by that), I think God is everything. Everything you can see, everything you can imagine, and everything you can't imagine. God is complete goodness so any good deity you can imagine must, in some way, be a part of him. Kali Mata is a good deity who I think has called me to devote myself to her, but I wouldn't say she's the "Complete" God.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

God is the totality of existence. He's all good things, manifest or unmanifest, limited or unlimited. Technically, since I think all things are good (it would take a while for me to explain what I mean by that), I think God is everything. Everything you can see, everything you can imagine, and everything you can't imagine. God is complete goodness so any good deity you can imagine must, in some way, be a part of him. Kali Mata is a good deity who I think has called me to devote myself to her, but I wouldn't say she's the "Complete" God.

So God is the Universe to you? If it is why not just refer to it as BrahmAnda, which would have nothing to do with the Christian Trinity equivalent.

PS: This relegates Kali Mata to something subordinate to a unknown entity, which is not how Hindus and Kali Mata devotees in particular see her as, to a Christian this may make sense, to some Hindus this may make sense, but to me saying Kali Mata is not a complete "God", assumes that there is a More Complete totality of existence then Kali, which makes no sense to me.

 

[User14]

So God is the Universe to you? If it is why not just refer to it as BrahmAnda, which would have nothing to do with the Christian Trinity equivalent.

PS: This relegates Kali Mata to something subordinate to a unknown entity, which is not how Hindus and Kali Mata devotees in particular see her as, to a Christian this may make sense, to some Hindus this may make sense, but to me saying Kali Mata is not a complete "God", assumes that there is a More Complete totality of existence then Kali, which makes no sense to me.

Sometimes I think Kali represents manifest reality, and Shiva represents the unmanifest. Together they form the complete totality of existence.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Sometimes I think Kali represents manifest reality, and Shiva represents the unmanifest. Together they form the complete totality of existence.

Now this makes sense to me, there is no use in replacing "Shiva, Kali:, ect with God, we don't have to use God at all, all things are stated within context, to me "God", in Hinduism is out of context.

Anyways, that's my view.