Spirituality within the context of Philosophy

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by radarmark

"Only You and I exist" becomes "You and I are one" becomes "This one does not exist"...

As I have posted elsewhere, one of my favourites is St Katherine of Sienna, who was told in a vision: "I am He Who Is, you are she who is not"

There are some very interesting contemplations buried in the writings of first millenium. Gregory of Nyssa started from an investigation of the space between things; Maximus the Confessor on movement ... Augustine questioned everything quite profoundly.

My favourite is Johann Scottus Eriugena (815–877). Too much the philosopher for theologians, too much the theologian for philosophers. He wrote 'The Fourfold Division of Nature', was considered 'the last great Platonist of the West' and, according to a highly-respected opinion (not my own) has written in that text a complete Christian metaphysic which is unmatched by any other.

His whole work rests on the distinction between the Knower and the known, that 'creation' is a projection, not that it does not exist ... but something along the lines that Vajradhara mentioned above ... I'll have to look again.

God bless

Thomas

[radarmark]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Agreed ... I would argue that 'spiritualism' as separate from 'religion' is a falsehood, a post 'enlightenment' one (if ever a movement was mis-named).

Thomas

Well, as long as one considers the difference between "Religion" and "religion"... as a member of RSF I really have no use for organizations.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I view all truth as 'real' and therefore as participating to some degree in the Divine.

Thomas

If by "truth" you mean some statement, proposition, or thought corresponding to an actual state-of affairs, of course on both points. I waffle on this, and since I began on this web-site I would state my position as "absolute truth" is out there, "absolute knowledge" is not.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Not sure about the image that engenders ... it puts the divine on the same plane as the created? A pantheist/panentheist viewpoint? Could just be splitting hairs here.

Thomas

Am Whiteheadean, so panentheist or panpsychic work for me.

Originally Posted by Thomas

I like Augustine on time "When no-one asks me, i know what it is, when someone asks, i do not know."
Paul Ricoeur has done some amazing work on Augustine on this question in "Time and Narrative" (3 volumes ... !)

Thomas

Read references to it, but my references on time get a little more "scientific", an tryning to catch up on the philosophical/theological side.
If you get a web-link or refernce, drop a line!

Pax et amore omnia vincunt.

[radarmark]

Originally Posted by Thomas

"I am He Who Is, you are she who is not"
Thomas

Broder!

Originally Posted by Thomas

Gregory of Nyssa; Maximus the Confessor; Augustine

I did not think anyone would blog on these three. There is much to learn from the medivalists, especially the philosophical-mystical theologans.

Originally Posted by Thomas

'The Fourfold Division of Nature'
Thomas

A frequent refrence in process philosophy (not so much in process theology), surely one of the three great Patonists (Plotinus and Whitehead being the other two IMO)

He does take a quite "Cave"-like view, you are correct.

Write again!

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by radarmark

... as a member of RSF I really have no use for organizations.

You've lost me, Reporters Without Borders, Rough Stuff Fellowship,
Republican Sinn Fein ...

Originally Posted by radarmark

Broder!

You've done it again ...

God bless,

Thomas

[Thomas]

Hi guys — can I drop in one this?

Originally Posted by bhaktajan

The subtle difference between jiv (atma) and God (Paramatma), according to this philosophy, is that quality wise jiv and God are identical but quantity wise jiv is infinitesimal whereas God is unlimited.

If the divine is divine then by its nature it is not subject to any order order of limitation. That's why we argue the soul is not the same stuff as God, for were it so, it would be God, absolutely and unconditionally ...

Just wondering on that point ...

Originally Posted by bhaktajan

This can only be experienced through Bhakti-yoga ...

.
It's almost an axiom with the trads that Christianity is a Bhakti-yoga, somewhat erroneously, I think. As one theologian said, how can a theology of the Logos/Word be anything but a jnani-yoga? Then again, a theology of the name is bhaktik ... in my own view, all traditions comprise all yogas in various organic and mutable arrangements.

Originally Posted by bhaktajan

... which maintains that the Supreme Lord is simultaneously one with and different from His creation. Lord Caitanya taught this philosophy through the chanting of the holy name of the Lord.

So do we. But I would not say the above infers panentheism?

Originally Posted by bhaktajan

He taught that the holy name of the Lord is the sound incarnation of the Lord and that since the Lord is the absolute whole, there is no difference between His holy name and His transcendental form.

"But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name: John 1:12.

Originally Posted by bhaktajan

... one attains the most coveted position--the stage of loving God. Lord Caitanya taught that this is the highest stage of perfection for human beings."

Amazing.

[FONT=Verdana]The Vaisnavas following Lord Caitanya stress the doctrine of acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, which states that the Supreme Lord, being the cause and effect of everything, is inconceivably, simultaneously one with His manifestations of energy and different from them."[/QUOTE]
As do we ... I could split hairs over 'manifestations of energy' bit I'm sure it all boils down to terminology.

God bless,

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by radarmark

I did not think anyone would blog on these three.

Sadly, IO attracts many, but rarely someone who stands in any tradition, so we tend to stay 'lite' in the discussions of Christian doctrine, theology, spirituality and metaphysics.

The trads I have conversed with would not hang around here for more than a couple of minutes ... and I doubt if they'd be welcomed, either, tending to be an outspoken bunch ... everything about IO is symptomatic of everything they see as wrong today.

Originally Posted by radarmark

There is much to learn from the medievalists, especially the philosophical-mystical theologans.

And some ... have you come across Nicholas of Cusa?

Since Vatican II there has been an increasing emphasis on Patristics (up to about the 8/9th centuries), whilst before it was all rather dull and dry Scholasticism — Aquinas' Summas are regarded almost a revelation, whilst his mystical writings are largely ignored. Bonaventure, the Seraphic Doctor and contemporary of Aquinas (the Angelic Doctor), hardly ever gets a mention. The anthropologies of the female mystics, Katherine of Sienna or Julian of Norwich, are likewise almost universally ignored.

God bless,

Thomas

[radarmark]

First "RSF" ia "Religious Society of Frinds" (Quakers). Sorry. Katherine and Julian are premire mystics (highly influential on George Fox, founder of RSF). De pace fidei and Cribratio Alchorani are perhaps the greatest works on tolerance since Augustine as least as far as Jews went).

Bruder! (mispelt last usage)

[Thomas]

Hi Radarmark —

I would check out Nicholas of Cusa if you have a chance, he might appeal to you.

A speculative mystic, he wrote on the possibility of knowing God with the divine human mind — noesis or infused insight — impossible through purely human means, which he referred to as "learned ignorance".

He was suspected by some of holding pantheistic beliefs (always a recommendation in my book).

He had a huge impact on his age. Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples and Charles de Bovelles cited him. Gottfried Leibniz is thought to have been influenced by him.

Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno were all aware of his writings and Johannes Kepler who called him 'divinely inspired' in the first paragraph of his first published work). Predating Kepler, Cusanus said that no perfect circle can exist in the universe (opposing the Aristotelean model, and also Copernicus' later assumption of circular orbits), thus opening the possibility for Kepler's model featuring elliptical orbits of the planets around the Sun. He influenced Bruno by denying the finiteness of the universe and the Earth's exceptional position in it (being not the center of the universe, and in that regard equal in rank with the other stars). His beliefs (which proved uncannily accurate) were based almost entirely on his own personal numerological calculations and metaphysics.

Cusanus contributed to the field of mathematics by developing the concepts of the infinitesimal and of relative motion. He was the first to use concave lenses to correct myopia. His writings were essential for Leibniz's discovery of calculus as well as Cantor's later work on infinity.

All in all, a polymath!

God bless,

Thomas

[radarmark]

Yep, knew about his impact on Liebnitz and Whitehead. Have you read any of Jasper Hopkins' stuff on him?

Find he and Cassirer have hit the nail pretty much on the head, he predates Descartes as "First Modern Philosopher". More than that, I really am interest in delving into his metaphysics which seem to have really influenced the German mystics.

Thanks, friend!

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by radarmark

Have you read any of Jasper Hopkins' stuff on him?

No! I'll look ... then again, I'll have to look at Cusa, who I've got at home ...

Originally Posted by radarmark

More than that, I really am interest in delving into his metaphysics which seem to have really influenced the German mystics.

There's a line, an inner tradition, or whatever you will ...

Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite (if prefer the Orthodox St Denys), the Cappadocians, St Augustine, St Maximus, Johann Scottus Eriugena ... Eriugena translated the Greek St Denys and St Maximus into Latin, and is regarded as the last great synthesis of Eastern and Western Christian thought, suspected by everyone, he was leagues ahead of the field.

Jean Borella is a perennialist who defends the Catholic Tradition in regard to comments made by Guénon and Schuon (in Sacred Web and elsewhere). Borella said of Schuon: 'If there were in my life a man whom I actually regarded as a Master, it is well him.'

He regards Eriugena's metaphysic as not only utterly misunderstood, but perhaps the most complete metaphysical system in Christianity worth the name.

Eriugena's writings were condemned (wrongly) and went underground, but they keep popping up, and he influenced Cusa and Eckhart.

I have his meisterwerk "On the Division of Nature" in Latin and English, and am obliged to learn Latin to get to grips with it.

Check out Eriugena, I think you might get to like him, if the German idealists are your thing ... I struggle with contemporary Phenomenology, but Eriugena was about a 1,000 years ahead of it all!

I've got stuff on him by Dermot Moran and Willemien Otten ...

Eriugena was asked to write a tract against the teachings of the Catholic monk, Gottschalk (806-68), who interpreted a twin predestination in Augustine (some go up, some go down) ... De divina praedestinatione (On Divine Predestination c851AD) was so metaphysically profound that no-one could get to grips with it, and even his friends abandoned him wheh it was condemned.

In my own opinion, Eriugena was so troubled by the failure to comprehend the metaphysical principles of Christianity that he decided to write a tract on that, and 10 years later Periphyseon (On the Division of Nature) followed.

... and that's when the smelly stuff hit the whirly thing ...

God bless,

Thomas

[Thomas]

Check this out:
Conference on Eriugena
Session three should keep the philosophers interested

God bless,

Thomas

[radarmark]

Heck, I might even attend!

Thanks, Friend

[Thomas]

I might try and work on it ... involves a trip across the pond.

But I am pursuing membership of the Society for the Promotion of Eriugenian Studies (SPES), which has been mordant for some time ...

God bless,

Thomas

[radarmark]

I understand. I spend most of my time at work (financial and program management in US defense acquisition) or reading (physics, metaphysics, and fiction). My only real outside interests are 1) a crazy notion that Whitehead can solve some of the problems with modern philosophy and physics and 2) a dedication to my Meetings (weekly, monthly, quareterly and yearly Quaker activities).

I amy well go catch this though.

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by bhaktajan
The subtle difference between jiv (atma) and God (Paramatma), according to this philosophy, is that quality wise jiv and God are identical but quantity wise jiv is infinitesimal whereas God is unlimited.

The divine is whole & complete & free to all things.
Limitations are our lot. The soul is 1/1000’s the size of the tip of a hair and as bright as a 100 Suns ---the soul is infitestimally tiny ---yet we are a spark “Part and Parcel” of the Godhead’s Supreme Personality.
Our “Physical Separation” and distance from Godhead absolutely limits the qualifications & Conditions that allow for interpersonal face-to-face exchanges. Our Spirit-spark of a Soul must “Serve Godhead in Seperation”.
We heal ourselves so as to enter the Manor house with the ettiquette conmenserate with association being sought.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhaktajan
This can only be experienced through Bhakti-yoga ...

Yoga (to link; ergo, re-ligio, to re-link) culminates with the path of Bhakti.
After years of hard-study and training ---the path of Devotion is open to us.
Krishna already delineates the three progressive steps of the yogic ladder of spiritual disciplines of the Vedas:
1st Karma yoga via avoiding Bad-works and seeking to do Good-Works.
2nd Intellectual Scholarship
3rd Devotion to the ultimate object of Moksha –Bhagavan Shree Krishna, aka, the Supreme Persona of Godhead.
So the lessons learnt by “Human Species of life” revolve around Actions & Intellect so as to reform ambitions toward the Original-First Person (Adi-Purusha). For it should be known that the Original-First Person is the reservoir of Persona ---God Almighty is that Personification of Person-hood.
God Almighty is absolute ---We Souls in the material world are simply lust mongers that canabalise eachother rather than promising the mass of our grandchildren a life of high-living & high-Thinking. We are cheaters and stealers and covetors of the supremely mundane here in the temporal world that we no not how it mercifully sustains us nor do most people care.
We are bon into ignorance and most are happy for a morsel of daily pleasure while rushing past the rest of the ocean of humanity.

Originally Posted by bhaktajan
... which maintains that the Supreme Lord is simultaneously one with and different from His creation. Lord Caitanya taught this philosophy through the chanting of the holy name of the Lord.

A name is a name by any other name?
The argument that God “is simultaneously one with and different from His creation” ---is a concern for debating any posited differring opinion ---that is all.
Coining nomenclatures (nick-names) does not make for specificity ---esp when the singular topic is “absolute”. It becomes an individual’s need to see himself lost among oceans of the multitudes--- whilst the Lord is absolutely His own Supreme Autocrat and thus obtaining the Audience of the Lord can ONLY be achieved by His Revelation ---this is understood via the 3 progressive phases to gain moksha, known as 1st Karma (mundane works), 2nd Jnana (honest intellectual investigation), and, 3rd Bhakti (devotion to apply karma & Jnana in daily life for the goal of Moksha) ---compare these 3 steps to he successful methods & mechanisms of a Happy Marriage.


Quote:

Originally Posted by bhaktajan
He taught that the holy name of the Lord is the sound incarnation of the Lord and that since the Lord is the absolute whole, there is no difference between His holy name and His transcendental form.

The mystery herein harkens to the very nature & physics of How God Expands his “Material & Spiritual energies” to creat the cosmos and Heaven.
“In the beginning there was the word . . . “

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhaktajan
... one attains the most coveted position--the stage of loving God. Lord Caitanya taught that this is the highest stage of perfection for human beings."

“Prema Bhakti”
The 5-Rasa(s) of mutual interpersonal reciprocal pastimes with Godhead in the Kingdom of God is:
Neutrality,
Servanthood,
Faternal,
Parental,
Amourous.

Here in the Material world: repeated births & deaths since time-immemorial in pursuit of enjoyment we witness mundane pursuits in a temporal world that can be summarised as a Fool’s errand of collecting Fool’s gold ---just so as to be enamored even more with with the same itenerary life after life in a Place Where Time Exists. Remember, God says directly in your faces, “Time I am destroyer of all”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhaktajan
The Vaisnavas following Lord Caitanya stress the doctrine of acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, which states that the Supreme Lord, being the cause and effect of everything, is inconceivably, simultaneously one with His manifestations of energy and different from them."

I like to think that world scriptures are historical documents ---either you know what occurred at far away times & places or you do not.