Spirituality within the context of Philosophy

[radarmark]

I understand wil, but we were searching for a term for that which is beyond the five senses or science. Yes, this that-which-is-beyond-the-material-universe is always within us and our midst. But it is something "Western Civilization" ("that would be a first"--Ghandiji) has pretty much ignored since the days of Descartes (or perhaps even earlier when Luther focused on the Word of G!d instead of the Presence of G!d).

 

[Bhaktajan II]

A good analogy is the root or dimension of a fractal. The "normal" is three-dimensional cube. The "beyond" is a two-dimensional mapping of the cube ontop a plane. "Spiritual endeavours" (talking about what we are talking about) are fractal powers ranging from 3 down to 2. There are an infinate number of paths between the "norm" and the "beyond" (like there a an infinate number of numbers between 2 and 3). Similarly the beyond incorporates the here and each of the transition phases (or paths) incorporate both.

QUOTE]

This is "sexy metaphysics". I think I like it!

You should expond more on just this "fractile root" create a chart showing this as an illustrated diagram.

After that, could you dovetail this maxim with the nature of "Holographs"?

 

[radarmark]

List of fractals by Hausdorff dimension - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia will take you to a page (the only one I know of) that has the "root" or "dimension" of fractals listed (some are <1, all are less than 3.

I like the idea of trying to graph this... I can try at some point.

Holographs, yeah, good idea. The "real 3-D" holograh is the material world and the film is the "other". As you cut the film into smaller and smaller pieces you blurr the image of the real. Tell me how you think this is similar to OAT's analogy.

 

[radarmark]

For those of you interestd (esp OAT and Bhaktajan) there is a great book by Roberrt Laughlin (another old physics instuctor) called "A Different Universe" in which this notion of what the universe looks like is explained in an emergent "symmetry breaking" and "phase transition" manner.

Both the crumpled paper and hologram analogies fit weel. Can probably get cheap at Half-Price Books or really easily at library. Written for borad audience but, he does not do real well explaining things (but neither do Stapp or Finkelstein). But no math and worth a scan (unlike other two he is a Nobel Laureate).

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Tell me how you think this is similar to OAT's analogy.

It's similar to Your analogy.

Fractile's 'fractions' very much remind me of the nature of "Holographs".
There would seem to be acommon denouminator somewhere between this two, Fractiles & Holographs.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Tell me how you think this is similar to OAT's analogy.

Well I thought about this ---at first I thought that you felt I was remarking about Oat's analogy---but I was talking about yours.

But there is an interesting point in Oats analogy:

The paper is still paper after the crumbling ---yet it is different.

"Veda" means 'knowledge'.
Intelligence means 'to distriminate' ie: Cheese is different from butter; yet, they are of the same thing.

2+2=4 for both the Store cashier and the rocket scientist ---the math is the same; but the final output is different.

This 'simultaneously different & the same' is an important concept in Hindu metaphysics, especially in the school of thought that I am from.

This concept in Hindu metaphysics is called:
"acintya bhedābheda tattva", "inconceivable one-ness and difference".

Achintya Bheda Abheda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[radarmark]

Bhaktajan... unfortunately both Hindu and Buddhist Logics are well beyond my field. However, I thank you. I especially liked the discussion by Stephen Knapp. I am not sure whether I can really grok it. The "difference" between Ich und Du that Diviata hold is something I just do not see (my problem also with most Christianities). The "entirely one" school of Advantia also seems a little extreme.

I must think about this. For I see the Divine (or beyond or whatever you want to call the G!dhead) as something both in this universe and outside it... as an eternal place or event whereas my place or event is limited in time and space. Makes me a panentheist of sorts.

Do you have any other references on Achintya Bheda Abheda?

Your friend, radarmark.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Do you have any other references on Achintya Bheda Abheda?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitanya_Charitamrita
The book “Chaitanya Charitamrita” is one of the primary biographies detailing the life and teachings of the ‘scheduled kali-yuga Avatar’ known as Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486–1533), a Vaisnava Avatar of God-Incarnate.
Shree Krishna-Chaitanya’s biography is comprised of the pastimes of the Hindu Indian sannyasis [monks] in India during the time of the end of the European dark-ages. The biography is filled with the highest esoteric interpersonal relationships, modes of ettiquette and the most sublime philosophical discourses and debates in the old-school world of India at the starts of Europe’s renaissance.


http://www.justforkidsonly.com/truth/?p=130#more-130
Achintya Abheda-Bheda is translated as “inconceivable or incomprehensible oneness and difference.” The philosophy is given by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486-1534).

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.

This can only be experienced through Bhakti-yoga. In this respect, philosophically, it is almost similar to Nimbarkacharya’s Dvaitadvaita philosophy. Worshiping wise Chaitanya’s philosophy is more near to Madhavacharya’s philosophy.

Thus, it can be said that, Chaitanya’s philosophy is the combination of Nimbarkacharya’s and Madhavacharya’s philosophy with the major difference in the way of worshiping. Chaitanya added Kirtan-bhakti and propounded Krishna, instead of Vishnu, as Purushottam (God) and the cause of all avatars.



http://bvml.org/FVS/brahma/lct.html
"Lord Caitanya instructed the mass of people in the sankhya philosophy of acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, 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.

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.

Thus by chanting the holy name of the Lord one can directly associate with the Supreme Lord by sound vibration. As one practices this sound vibration, one passes through three stages of development: the offensive stage, the clearing stage and the transcendental stage.

In the offensive stage one may desire all kinds of material happiness, but in the second stage one becomes clear of all material contamination.

When one is situated on the transcendental stage, 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."

Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi lila, Preface
"....The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who emanates the material and spiritual worlds, is the Supreme Spirit. As an individual spirit soul is almost identical to his gross and subtle bodies, so the Supreme Lord is almost identical to the material and spiritual worlds.

The material world, full of conditioned souls trying to lord it over matter, is a manifestation of the external energy of the Supreme Lord, and the spiritual world, full of perfect servitors of the Lord, is a manifestation of His internal energy. Since all living entities are minute sparks of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, He is the Supreme Soul in both the material and spiritual worlds.

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."
Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi lila 2:37

 

[radarmark]

So, I take it your conception of the spirit is "being one with" but "being separate from" the individual? The reading seemed very Vedantic and Monotheistic (to me, but maybe it is my rose-colored glasses). Sri Krishna is the latest avatar of the Supreme Being? Is the Devotion (Bhakti) or the Practice (Bhakti Yoga) that is paramount? Is the isolation of the sunyasin and the proper ritual still a focus? "Inconceivable oneness and difference" is primarily a function of quantity not quality, that is our souls are the same as the Divine's, just incredibly small in comparison? But that leads one to the opposite of what I thought: it is more than Vedantic or Monotheistic.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt, radarmark

 

[Thomas]

Hi Radarmark —

"Spiritualism" as I use it is not spooks and seyances (sp?)... but the Perenial Theology of James, Schuon, Lovejoy, and Wilber (and, and, and)...

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

That of G!d that is in me (and she does speak and sing to me often) tells me that there is a central essence, a core, a wisdom within each Way--if we just look deeply (and non-literally) enough.

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

The Kosmos ... That Center is the Divine.

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.

Any comments out there?

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 ... !)
I'll dig it up.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

"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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

Broder!

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.

'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]

... 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 ...

Broder!

You've done it again ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi guys — can I drop in one this?

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 ...

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.

... 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?

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.

... 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.

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]

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.

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]

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 ...

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