Why do the Hindus use the term I AM instead of God?

[Honza]

Originally Posted by Flear

you're asking why some word gets translated into another word ?

you're not familiar with languages & translations are you ?

every translation is always "best fit". there is almost never a translation between different languages that is exact.

That is a good observation.....

[Honza]

However I would say that there is also a difference in how Hindus describe God and in how they attempt to reach God in comparison to the West. It is not just a matter of translating God/I AM from Hinduism into English. It is the whole affair of talking, explaining & living.

Originally Posted by ajay00

The "I" here actually denotes consciousness or awareness.

As per Vedanta, God is all pervading consciousness.

Instead of searching God outside, one can find Him in one's own consciousness.

I have thought of it in these terms...Source/All/Conscious Awareness..etc..This Energy permeates every-thing...that means us as well of course..It's The Animator of Life... It is 'I'...It is One...and has no beginning or end... It is THE I AM.

[kris]

Originally Posted by Flear

you're asking why some word gets translated into another word ?

you're not familiar with languages & translations are you ?

every translation is always "best fit". there is almost never a translation between different languages that is exact.

This is so true.

It is not easy to translate things that cannot be pointed at from one language to another. Perfect examples of this are words like God, god, G_d, etc. that you see sprinkled around in this forum. None of the ancient Indian writings, which are mostly, though not all, in Sanskrit mention God at all. This Hindu, for one, is not sure who God is.

Sanskrit words that are most commonly rendered as God in English are Isha, Ishvara and parameshvara. They derive from the root ish which means to control or govern. Its derivative isha means one who controls or governs. The subscript vara functions like the subscript 'er' in English and indicates a higher degree. Ishvara thus means higher controller. The prefix param functions like the suffix 'est' in English and indicates highest degree. parameshvara thus means highest controller. I prefer to not translate some Sanskrit words into English when such translations are more likely to cause confusion and overlook important differences or even nuances in concepts.

Ajay00 and Vinayaka raise some good points on "I AM" from the perspective of Jnana. It seems appropriate here to directly quote a dialogue with the Jnani Yogi Ramana Maharshi from "TALKS With Ramana Maharshi" By Munagala Venkataramiah. As Vinayaka indicated, there are sages who did NOT read scriptures and Ramana is one of them. (For your information, Carl Jung described Ramana Maharshi as the "whitest spot in the white space of India". )

Ramana often quoted the same Biblical quotes that Ajay00 mentioned in an earlier post:

"Be still and know that I AM God".
"Blessed are the pure of heart for they shall see God".

I would add some other Biblical references regarding "I AM" which have deep implications as well.

"Before Abraham was, I AM".
"I AM the Way, the Truth, and The Life".

I am typing the dialogue with Ramana Maharshi on this subject without comment. Draw your own conclusions.



Talk 226. (3rd July, 1936)

A visitor from Tirukoilur asked if the study of the sacred books will reveal the truth.

M. That will not suffice.
D. Why not?
M. Samadhi alone can reveal it. Thoughts cast a veil over Reality.
D. Is there thought in Samadhi? Or is there not?
M. There will only be the feeling "I am" and no other thoughts.
D. Is not "I am" a thought?
M. The egoless "I am" is not a thought. It is realization. The meaning or significance of "I" is God. The experience of "I am" is to "Be Still".

[Vinayaka]

Originally Posted by ajay00

I would say both meditation and Vedanta are part of Jnana Yoga where philosophical understanding plays a major role.

The mystical part, precisely speaking, would be more in tune with Raja Yoga.

Like I said, there are divergent views. Not one is correct over the other, but it simply varies by school.

Originally Posted by samsara4

M. The egoless "I am" is not a thought. It is realization. The meaning or significance of "I" is God. The experience of "I am" is to "Be Still".

Yes. Great insight. The sky-like Mind..Don't move..don't move.. Realization.

[Vinayaka]

Originally Posted by samsara4

I am typing the dialogue with Ramana Maharshi on this subject without comment. Draw your own conclusions.

Talk 226. (3rd July, 1936)

A visitor from Tirukoilur asked if the study of the sacred books will reveal the truth.

M. That will not suffice.
D. Why not?
M. Samadhi alone can reveal it. Thoughts cast a veil over Reality.
D. Is there thought in Samadhi? Or is there not?
M. There will only be the feeling "I am" and no other thoughts.
D. Is not "I am" a thought?
M. The egoless "I am" is not a thought. It is realization. The meaning or significance of "I" is God. The experience of "I am" is to "Be Still".

I always find it interesting how people like to quote Ramana's wisdom and use it from the point of where he was, without looking at how Ramana got there. I've heard recently that the ashram is empty, and nobody goes there to meditate. If people do go there, it's more an act of reminiscing and discussion. It's now morphed into a practice of talking about it, rather than doing. (i.e .. meditating)

Ramana spent many years 'living' in the sanctum of the great Siva temple, Arunaleswara, just below the mountain named Arunachala, before he moved up towards the mountain.

sometimes, even things that can be pointed at do not have a direct translation

English:
rat = rat
mouse = mouse

Japanese:
nezume = ... depends on the translation, could be rat, could be rodent'

usually, things like this don't matter.
but have a look at the 12 zodiac animals
is it a rat, or is it a mouse ???
it depends on the translation used. times like this to use one and exclude the other could be wrong

---

different languages have more than one word for love...

when it comes to sanscrit, the "i am" conversation.

if you can think with thoughts, not words, you get amazingly close to the truth, but the moment you give it a word, you have lost the truth of the concept you are thinking about.

the "i am"
you can try to find it, you can say you are searching for it

if we think about this like "love"
things become obvious

if you tell the person you care about you are 'trying to find love for them", you are "searching for love for them"

you're going to get a very disgusted look thrown your way.

the "I AM" isn't something you search for, you either have it or you don't realize what it is.

---

now you're trying to figure out what "I AM" is vs. "GOD".

depends who you ask (who has found it)

some may say they are the same thing

or in the west we tend to put everything in it's place, things we can point to.

god is a concept that we can say "HE" "SITS" in "HIS THRONE" "OVERLOOKING THE WORLD" (that's a lot of capitals - anyway)

who said god has to be a "HE"
if god "SITS" it means god is there, and not here
and god has "HIS THRONE" so god feels the need to posses things
all the while he is "OVERLOOKING THE WORLD",... because according to western thinking god must be disconnected from everything, external to us, all knowing, but needs to observe, all being, except has a place where he is (and everywhere else he is not)

---

you are trying to mix east and west, and finding they don't mix to well, ... "They don't translate"

you're trying to think with words, and suddenly the meaning, the concept is lost

and in a world where everything has it's place, you see separate things, where things are not connected, ... so how can divinity be so close, as explained in "I AM" and there is no concept of "GOD" as the mightiest must be, must exist, must be recognized, ... (must have a translation that is separate from "I AM")

but what if it's the same ?

you'll never get answers to your questions when you close yourself off from the possibilities that you could be wrong.

we tend to think is dualities, ... but what if that's the problem ?
we forget 3s (here, there, in between) (past, present, future)
we forget 1's (everything)
we remain seadfast in duality, "here or there" but not "everywhere", "right or wrong", but not "depends"

---

sometimes, the extent to which you have closed yourself off to possibilities is apparent in how you ask the question.

"Why do the Hindus use the term I AM instead of God?"

what if it's not "instead" ???
in asking the question you did, you closed yourself off from the possibility that it could be the same thing

---

in the west, everything is external, even concepts of god, (who sits in his throne overlooking the world - but is not everywhere including inside & connected to us)

even thinking of god "in our heart" but "only if you accept", ... so if you don't accept, then there is a place god is not ???

western christian (and similar) religion is poisonous.

then again so is far eastern that has us searching exclusivly within ourself.

where far eastern fails, ... is like this example for thought:
how can you know you are good, if you do no good deeds ?

indeed, if you are searching inside for your answers how can you experience anything ?, you have to be outside to love your husband or wife ?, you have to be outside to kiss your kids at night, ... you have to be outside to go to your job, do the work asked of you so that you can provide for your family

east & west, ... have become extremes, and in doing so have missed the mark

and to travel down this rabbit hole, ... well that's something that might be a touch beyond this forum

and yes, the full explanation is necessary to understand the 2 points made,

and there are only 2 points made, ... but if you are reading the words you may miss the point