Krempel’s masterly study of the concept of relation, especially in St Thomas, seems not to have been sufficiently assimilated by the author. This weakens his understanding of ‘person’ and its possible application in Vedānta. Like many contemporary Christian writers, he includes ‘relation’ within the very definition of ‘person’ without wondering why St Thomas did not do that. Specific definitions of the term, when applied to specified persons, such as those of the Trinity, have to include it for special reasons. But ‘relation’ is not a definiens of ‘person in general’ which only connotes ‘capacity for inter¬personal relationships.’ (De Smet, Review of Doctrine de la Non-Dualite (advaita-vada) et Christianisme, in Indian Theological Studies 23/1 (1986) 65-68.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
Person and relation
Here is something I have been searching for and found this morning. It is from De Smet, saying why 'relation' is not to be included in the definition of person in general: