Mistranslations of Central Upanishadic Terms

[dwai]

Hello,

 

When I read the New Testament...I find a "person" being structured in this way:

BTW, my first language is Greek not English...

 

Body (Greek word is Soma)

Soul (Greek word is Pseehee)

Spirit (Greek word is Pnevma)

Mind (Greek word is Nous)....a tool for the spirit and not a "fourth" member....like a groupie!

 

The body is the physical body

The soul is composed of feelings and mind

The spirit is the indestructible me, as it were...which I label with a name or title.

 

Atman = Brahman also has its' counterpart in the New Testament as such:

 

People are spirits = God is spirit...NOT a spirit? Why the differentiation? Everthing exists "in" God

The New Testament also states that "our spirit becomes one with his spirit, making us the children of God"

 

There is too much of an unwillingness by people to read and actually do comparative religious study on these matters folks. I've seen it from the academics, EXCEPT for Thomas Mcevilley's book "The Shape of Thought," down to the non-academics also.

 

Research this & tell me it isn't so.

Thank you,

stefos

 

I don't think the Abrahamic traditions have any parallel to what Advaita Vedanta (or even Vedanta) in general refer to. Atman = Brahman does not have a counterpart of the New Testament. People can retrofit the narrative to see it does, but that is just their interpretation. The general view is that God and man are separate entities and that God created man, and man is doomed to go to hell if he doesn't put his faith in God and his only son, Jesus Christ.

 

What is being referred to as Atman is not people's spirit. Atman is Brahman. What people consider their spirit is the ephemeral entity called "Jiva" (or that which lives, implicaiton will also die).

[forestofemptiness]

That's only true if you subtract the Christian mystical tradition. Western religion has always had an exoteric and esoteric set of meanings.

 

Meister Eckhart:

 

Some people think they will see God as if he were standing there and they here. It is not so. God and I, we are one.

 

I don't think the Abrahamic traditions have any parallel to what Advaita Vedanta (or even Vedanta) in general refer to. Atman = Brahman does not have a counterpart of the New Testament. People can retrofit the narrative to see it does, but that is just their interpretation. The general view is that God and man are separate entities and that God created man, and man is doomed to go to hell if he doesn't put his faith in God and his only son, Jesus Christ.

 

What is being referred to as Atman is not people's spirit. Atman is Brahman. What people consider their spirit is the ephemeral entity called "Jiva" (or that which lives, implicaiton will also die).

[dwai]

That's only true if you subtract the Christian mystical tradition. Western religion has always had an exoteric and esoteric set of meanings.

 

Meister Eckhart:

 

Some people think they will see God as if he were standing there and they here. It is not so. God and I, we are one.

 

Hmm...I wonder what reaction you would get from a practicing Christian if you were to tell him that? I get vehement reactions from dualists of all denominations -- they just are not comfortable considering for a moment that they are the same. And the idea of "God" in general connotates a supreme being that is the overlord of everything and hands out judgements, punishments and rewards based on one's degree of faith and moral fortitude.

 

That is not the Brahman of Advaita Vedanta. I don't need to tell you that of course. And while I'm not very well versed in western mystical traditions, I have had the opportunity to read about John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, etc. One of the things that stands out is that they all worked within (and often in a conflicted state wrt their relationship with the Church and it's doctrines and their personal experiences) So, Western Mysticism (post-Greek classical and "pagan" Western cultures) comes across as a stilted/stymied branch. As opposed to the flourishing of these in the Eastern cultures (in fact these dictated the "religions" that developed out of that crucible).

 

Not much is known about these today (especially the druidic/celtic traditions) except the whacky new agey renditions of these thereof. I do not consider Meso-american traditional systems as western -- they are different and they definitely have a lot of parallels with Vedanta, Daoist systems.

[forestofemptiness]

I think most people do not tend toward non-duality, and that it's practice is rare in ever culture. Your average ethnic Buddhist, for instance, won't practice meditation or get very deeply into the literature or the practice. I imagine this is the same is most cultures. How many sincerely practicing Advaitins are out there anyway?

[3bob]

a good point, also for instance how many people can take the path of renunciation/sannyasin for a lifetime - very, very few -

and it's not really a householders place to try and do such, for then they would be going against a householders

dharma of living in the world while dealing with and fulfilling those types of dharmas! (thus it's not really a householders place

except perhaps nearer the end of life to become a renunciate and practice/teach those parts of the teachings)

[dwai]

I think most people do not tend toward non-duality, and that it's practice is rare in ever culture. Your average ethnic Buddhist, for instance, won't practice meditation or get very deeply into the literature or the practice. I imagine this is the same is most cultures. How many sincerely practicing Advaitins are out there anyway?

 

Indeed. It is not however entirely a matter of practice. It has a lot to do with a social framework in which those who do practice are supported to do so. While on one hand they are venerated and supported via alms and recognition/respect on the other they are ostracised, persecuted and even burnt at the stake...

 

Now you tell me which does and is more likely to get credence?

[RongzomFan]

http://medhajournal....adic-terms.html

 

 

atman translates to "identity", no matter the philosophy.

 

Its merely the sanskrit word for identity.

 

In Advaita, the identity is really Brahman.

[RongzomFan]

Pure objectless consciousness is alive. Nothing, as in nihilistic emptiness is not. But there are those who say "emptiness" and pure objectless consciousness are non-different

 

 

Madhyamaka: Nonarising/illusion because dependently originated phenomenon do not arise in the first place.

 

Advaita Vedanta : Nonarising/illusion since Brahman never displays as anything other than Brahman.

Edited January 15, 2013 by alwayson