Swami Chinmayananda has explained/defined God in the following interview, which I am reading. The explanation is same as my understanding.
Wisdom of Hindu Philosophy: Conversations with Swami Chinmayananda Conversations Recorded by Nancy Freeman Patchen 1978-1992
Question: Swamiji, is there really a God?
Swamiji: Those denying God are only denying their own misconceptions of what God is. Some investigation into that which you are denying is necessary, or the denial is useless. This is a scientific age—on what evidence do you base your denial? It’s easy to say you don’t believe a “rakatah” exists. I ask you what is a “rakatah.” And you tell me you don’t even know. It is just some sound. The word “God” is only a sound. What does this sound symbolize? That is what each you must investigate for yourself.
Q: What would you say God is?
S: God is Truth. God is that which remains constant in past, present and future; all else is false.
Q: But is God really running the show?
S: If God is sitting and writing our individual histories—all these sorrows and tragedies—he must be a mental pervert. Right? This idea of God is a poetic point of view; it has no philosophical support. The creator endows the mental and physical equipment and situations in the creation according to your own instructions, so that you can expend your own desires.
Q: But just what is the relationship of God, mankind and the world?
S: It is very difficult to find words to express the exact relationship. Words are finite, and finite words cannot express fully the Infinite. Therefore we must attempt to convey the truth through an illustration, which can only bring forth the principles. Then we have to mentally chew and digest the imparted ideas, so that the illustration may yield its sacred sweetness to us. The relationship that exists between the individual, the world and Creator is explained by the example of a piece of cloth in which a decorative pattern is woven, like one of the tapestries we use for wall hangings. Now this piece of cloth is made of threads passing in and through it. The threads make up the patterns in the cloth, for example, a family sitting at tea on a long veranda with trees and sky in the background. Now, for the sake of our model, this scene would be equivalent to our total conception of the world, with its oceans, mountains, continents and individuals. The pattern constitutes our world. Now the existence of this cloth depends on what? Has it any existence other than the thread? If we were to remove the thread would there be any cloth? No, because the cloth is only the thread. However, since we look only at the patterns of the thread, we only see the portrayal of the family at tea on the cloth. But there can be no pattern without the thread. The thread here is the symbol for the Creator—without whom there would be no creation of tapestry or its designs.
Thus the whole world is established by and patterned in the Divine principle. If we take away this Divine principle, the entire pattern_the world_would necessarily melt into nothingness, just as the piece of cloth would end if all the threads were to be removed. Now let us analyze this principle further. What is the cause of the thread? If it were not for the cotton, the thread would not have existed, nor the cloth, nor the figure woven on it. In cotton, the three—the thread, the cloth and the pattern—exist. Out of cotton all the three appeared, and into cotton they return when they perish. The true essence of this cloth is nothing but cotton. Remove the cotton and try to give me a piece of cloth, please! The all-pervading Supreme Reality in itself has not undergone any alteration. Just as cotton remains cotton; it only changes its form in the tapestry.
According to its stage of modification, we give it the name “thread,” the name “cloth,” then the name “pattern.” Thus the relationship between the created, the creation and the creator is that there is no relationship possible because relationship connotes that at least two things exist. If we sincerely seek the exact relationship between the Supreme Reality and ourselves, we have to conclude that there is no difference at all. Just as there can be no difference between the cotton and the cloth with its pattern.
...
Wisdom of Hindu Philosophy: Conversations with Swami Chinmayananda Conversations Recorded by Nancy Freeman Patchen 1978-1992
Question: Swamiji, is there really a God?
Swamiji: Those denying God are only denying their own misconceptions of what God is. Some investigation into that which you are denying is necessary, or the denial is useless. This is a scientific age—on what evidence do you base your denial? It’s easy to say you don’t believe a “rakatah” exists. I ask you what is a “rakatah.” And you tell me you don’t even know. It is just some sound. The word “God” is only a sound. What does this sound symbolize? That is what each you must investigate for yourself.
Q: What would you say God is?
S: God is Truth. God is that which remains constant in past, present and future; all else is false.
Q: But is God really running the show?
S: If God is sitting and writing our individual histories—all these sorrows and tragedies—he must be a mental pervert. Right? This idea of God is a poetic point of view; it has no philosophical support. The creator endows the mental and physical equipment and situations in the creation according to your own instructions, so that you can expend your own desires.
Q: But just what is the relationship of God, mankind and the world?
S: It is very difficult to find words to express the exact relationship. Words are finite, and finite words cannot express fully the Infinite. Therefore we must attempt to convey the truth through an illustration, which can only bring forth the principles. Then we have to mentally chew and digest the imparted ideas, so that the illustration may yield its sacred sweetness to us. The relationship that exists between the individual, the world and Creator is explained by the example of a piece of cloth in which a decorative pattern is woven, like one of the tapestries we use for wall hangings. Now this piece of cloth is made of threads passing in and through it. The threads make up the patterns in the cloth, for example, a family sitting at tea on a long veranda with trees and sky in the background. Now, for the sake of our model, this scene would be equivalent to our total conception of the world, with its oceans, mountains, continents and individuals. The pattern constitutes our world. Now the existence of this cloth depends on what? Has it any existence other than the thread? If we were to remove the thread would there be any cloth? No, because the cloth is only the thread. However, since we look only at the patterns of the thread, we only see the portrayal of the family at tea on the cloth. But there can be no pattern without the thread. The thread here is the symbol for the Creator—without whom there would be no creation of tapestry or its designs.
Thus the whole world is established by and patterned in the Divine principle. If we take away this Divine principle, the entire pattern_the world_would necessarily melt into nothingness, just as the piece of cloth would end if all the threads were to be removed. Now let us analyze this principle further. What is the cause of the thread? If it were not for the cotton, the thread would not have existed, nor the cloth, nor the figure woven on it. In cotton, the three—the thread, the cloth and the pattern—exist. Out of cotton all the three appeared, and into cotton they return when they perish. The true essence of this cloth is nothing but cotton. Remove the cotton and try to give me a piece of cloth, please! The all-pervading Supreme Reality in itself has not undergone any alteration. Just as cotton remains cotton; it only changes its form in the tapestry.
According to its stage of modification, we give it the name “thread,” the name “cloth,” then the name “pattern.” Thus the relationship between the created, the creation and the creator is that there is no relationship possible because relationship connotes that at least two things exist. If we sincerely seek the exact relationship between the Supreme Reality and ourselves, we have to conclude that there is no difference at all. Just as there can be no difference between the cotton and the cloth with its pattern.
...
