0
Newguest Posted 17 years ago
Vocabulary
Strange sentence
Hi
Neither the Vedanta philosophy of the Upanishads, nor
Jainism, Buddhism or Chinese Taoism (at least in their original forms) has any
concepts of gods. As with unfallen peoples, the “highest power” in the universe is
not God but Spirit, which is not a being but an impersonal force. This is
inevitable, since if the members of these groups transcended ego-separateness and experienced a sense of oneness with the cosmos, they would have no need for God or gods. The Stoics did have a concept of God, but not as a personal being. To
them God was the logos or eternal reason, the force which directs the development
of life, and the seed or “living heat” which gives birth to all things.
--- The sentence in bold doesn't make sense to me. The author first speaks of Vedanta, Janism, Buddhism, Taoism and says that they have no concept of God and then he writes "...since if the members of these groups transcended ego-separateness ...they would have no need ...".
So first he says that have no gods and then he says they would need no gods???
Neither the Vedanta philosophy of the Upanishads, nor
Jainism, Buddhism or Chinese Taoism (at least in their original forms) has any
concepts of gods. As with unfallen peoples, the “highest power” in the universe is
not God but Spirit, which is not a being but an impersonal force. This is
inevitable, since if the members of these groups transcended ego-separateness and experienced a sense of oneness with the cosmos, they would have no need for God or gods. The Stoics did have a concept of God, but not as a personal being. To
them God was the logos or eternal reason, the force which directs the development
of life, and the seed or “living heat” which gives birth to all things.
--- The sentence in bold doesn't make sense to me. The author first speaks of Vedanta, Janism, Buddhism, Taoism and says that they have no concept of God and then he writes "...since if the members of these groups transcended ego-separateness ...they would have no need ...".
So first he says that have no gods and then he says they would need no gods???
Top answer
These ideas are not mutually exclusive. Your author says that since they don't need it, they don't have it. ) Is this the same as pantheism, in which nature itself is ***?
- These ideas are not mutually exclusive.
- Your author says that since they don't need it, they don't have it.
- ) Is this the same as pantheism, in which nature itself is ***?
- - or something like that?
- I should think in this case to transcend ego-separateness would mean to be at one with the universe.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
2 Answers
0
These ideas are not mutually exclusive. Your author says that since they don't need it, they don't have it. (The reason they don't have it is because they don't need it.)
Is this the same as pantheism, in which nature itself is ***? - or something like that?
I should think in this case to transcend ego-separateness would mean to be at one with the universe.
Is this the same as pantheism, in which nature itself is ***? - or something like that?
I should think in this case to transcend ego-separateness would mean to be at one with the universe.
00
Hi
I'm not sure if it's the same as pantheism, but in my view it's very close to it.
Thanks Avangi!
I'm not sure if it's the same as pantheism, but in my view it's very close to it.
Thanks Avangi!
0
Related Questions