Transcendence and immanance

[Guest guest]

Hello,

> > Is there a difference in emphasis in the words Transcendence

> > and Immanence? If yes, why? If no, why is the former always

> > mentioned, and the latter omitted?

 

The emphasis is different for people in different frames of mind.

 

The aspirant first looks upon God as transcendent. He looks upon God

a the bestower of results of his actions. He looks upon God for moral

and emotional support. He looks upon God as someone different from

himself.

 

After a certain level of realization, the aspirant starts seeing God

as immanent. He looks upon God as the doer of all actions. He realizes

that God is the core of his own existence.

 

In the Gita, Krishna mentions that the first step is to surrender the

fruits of action to God. The second step is to surrender the sense of

doership also. These two steps correspond to the attitude of the

aspirant towards God - Transcedent and Immanent - respectively.

 

The idea of immanence of God in a immature person can lead to harmful

results like lethargy and as a justification for evil. It is for this

reason that this aspect is not emphasised among the common public.

 

The aspirant should naturally realize this aspect at the right time. He

should always start with the transcendent aspect.

 

With love,

Gomu.

 

=====

---------------

Email: gomu

Webpage: http://www.geocities.com/gokulmuthu/

Phone: +91 80 6689904

---------------

 

 

 

Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.

http://im./

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

****Let me raise a few points of disagreement!

 

The emphasis is different for people in different frames of mind.

The aspirant first looks upon God as transcendent.

 

****I do not think this is the right use of the word transcendent in

this context. At the most one can say that the aspirant has an

anthropomorphic idea of a being who has more power & knowledge than

the aspirant and anyone known to the aspirant.

 

 

After a certain level of realization, the aspirant starts seeing God

as immanent.

 

****Levels of realisation is an idea that may be hard to prove; are

there levels of realisation about a dream?[if one accepts the shruti-

smriti analogies?]

 

 

In the Gita, Krishna mentions that the first step is to surrender the

fruits of action to God. The second step is to surrender the sense of

doership also. These two steps correspond to the attitude of the

aspirant towards God - Transcedent and Immanent - respectively.

 

 

****Surrendering the fruits of actions to God cannot be construed as

an "attitude of transcendence". Transcendence is not an attitude.

 

 

The idea of immanence of God in a immature person can lead to harmful

results like lethargy and as a justification for evil. It is for this

reason that this aspect is not emphasised among the common public.

 

****This is an extra-ordinary statement!

Immanence is not an idea; all the teachings emphasize Immanence:

Why else would Taittiriya upan., shikshaavallii exhort;

maatR^i devo bhava . pitR^i devo bhava. aachaarya devo bhava. atithi

devo bhava.[be one to whom Mother is Divine...etc.]

The whole of iisha upan. re-iterates the same.

jiivo brahmaiva naaparaH....iti vedaanta diNDimaH . is the drum-beat

of Shankara's writings.

 

 

The aspirant should naturally realize this aspect at the right time.

He

should always start with the transcendent aspect.

 

****In the transcendent aspect, there is no bondage, nor moksha,

&c.&c. How can the aspirant be expected to start with transcendent

aspect?!

 

 

The following URLs may be found useful for further study of the

subject:

 

 

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/schellin

..htm

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

 

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/godtalk.html

 

http://www.philosophypages.com/index.htm

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

PS: Kant's 'transcendental inquiry'(or 'argument') was carried

further by Schelling in his book 'Philosophy of Transcedental

Idealism', [1800]. Thomas Aquinas also had struggled with this in the

13th cent.

 

 

 

advaitin , Gokulmuthu Narayanaswamy <gomu@g...>

wrote:

> Hello,

>

> > > Is there a difference in emphasis in the words

Transcendence

> > > and Immanence? If yes, why? If no, why is the former always

> > > mentioned, and the latter omitted?

>

> The emphasis is different for people in different frames of

mind.