The blog rolls again...this time, special welcome to the students in PHIL 322, Philosophy of Religion. We're going to tackle some great issues over the next few months, and it will be fascinating to see your thoughts reflected on this site.
While the content of the course is largely Western in orientation, at the beginning it's important to register the multiplicity of perspectives (and thus the diversity of problems) that constitute the "religion" part of "philosophy of religion." Then we'll be in a good position to think about the challenge of religious pluralism theoretically, and from there move on to some of the particular problems that go with monotheism (particularly proofs for God's existence).
So, I'd like everyone to respond below with a brief post that identifies the key issues/positions in the text that I assigned you in my recent email. If you want to respond to comments that appeared before yours, feel free.
God’s Nature and Knowledge, by Avicenna, offers an analysis of god in a complex manner. Avicenna, a Muslim believes that god is ultimate, and everything comes from him. It is made very clear that there is only one god: the Necessary Being. Avicenna makes the statement that god is truth; he is the one and only, no other being shares his traits or virtues. Quickly, however, the seemingly contradictory statement is made that god has no active cause. This caused me to pause and wonder, why would he state that god has no active cause, if the reader was just told about the oneness of god, and his existence. If he has no active cause, why acknowledge that he exists in the first place, because without a cause what does acknowledging his existence do? Furthermore, not only is Avicenna acknowledging gods existence, but he is praising him.
ReplyDeleteThe tone once again shifts as Avicenna praises god for all the “perfection” that he has created, and thus “belongs to him”. By the conclusion, Avicenna acknowledges the contradictions that have been brought to light: “when it is stated that He is a Necessary Being, this means that He is a Being without cause, and that He is the Cause of other than himself: this is a combination of the negative and the positive”(97). The statement is unique and confusing, for it acknowledges that god has no cause, yet he is the cause of the existence of others. Furthermore, it is noted that god has both positive and negative attributes. This was something that stood out as unique to me, because I had never seen god classified as having negative attributes. By the end of the piece, although Avicenna has wrestled with the existence of god, and necessary being, it is crystal clear that god is greater than all people, and will forever remain more knowledgeable.
Nadine Barbasch
Jayatilleke, Courtney Zehnder
ReplyDeleteIn this text, J attempts to answer the question "What is Nirvana?" by dealing with some of the common misconceptions as to its meaning, through a Theravada lens. At the end, he outright says, "...Nirvana is...the Transcendent Reality, whose real nature we cannot grasp with our normal minds because of our self-imposed limitations. It is a state of freedom, power, perfection, knowledge, and perfect happiness of a transcendent sort. It is also said to be a state of perfect mental health, which we should try to attain for our personal happiness as well as for harmonious living".
The first part of the quote, about not being able to grasp with our limited minds, he likens to that of a person born blind, who has never known vision, light, color, and trying to grasp via someone else's explanation what sight is like. That person may say it is not smell or sound or touch, but that still will not provide the necessary information for the blind man to conceive of sight, just like we, with out limitations, cannot conceive of Nirvana.
He really deals with the definition of Nirvana by looking at its two most common, yet seemingly contradictory definitions: Nirvana as "ultimate reality" or "ultimate good" and Nirvana as "annihilation". Some have said, according to J, that the soul experienced Nirvana when completely immersed in the joy of sensory experience. Others see this as a means to find oneself eventually unhappy and see Nirvana as a contemplative state involving detachment from those very sensory pleasures. The etymology of the term leans more towards the latter, with the word "Nirvana" meaning "blowing out" or "extinction".
People also contested what "annihilation" could even mean in a Buddhist context. Some simply said that when desires/beliefs ceased to function, greed/hatred/ignorance would dissipate and the individual would exist no more. Some said, however, that the individual would have to exist in the first place in order for that to be true; some said that there is no "being" to become annihilated. J says that the Buddha denies the persistence of an unchanging entity with a solid core of identity but that he did not deny the phenomenal reality of the individual.
Buddha poses the great question about Nirvana in the Suttanipata: "The person who has attained the goal--does he not exist or does he exist eternally without defect?" J goes on to say the Nirvana cannot be constrained by space or time and he seems to be saying that Nirvana begins with the latter, through intense meditation and then moves somewhat closer to the former.
Lao Tzu’s “Tao Te Ching” opens with the statement, “The Tao that can be told of is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name”. Nevertheless, Lao Tzu attempts to tell us what the Tao is in his “Tao Te Ching”. This seemingly paradoxical opening reveals the mystical, ineffable quality of the Tao: “Tao is empty. It may be used … It is bottomless, perhaps the ancestor of all things”. There is no precise definition to the Tao, it is “eluding and vague”, but it is mystical and powerful – “Tao produced the One. The One produced the two. The two produced the three. And the three produced the ten thousand things”. The ten thousand things embrace both the yin and the yang, and perfect harmony is achieved when everything becomes One (the Tao).
ReplyDeleteAccording to this text, opposing forces of the universe are complementary (such as yin and yang, the beautiful and the ugly, good and evil etc.), they differ but harmonise each other. Perhaps we can understand this as an attempt to eliminate societal discriminations and prejudices. The sage goes with the flow, he “manages affairs without action” (or non-action, wu-wei), he does not claim credit for his achievements.
There is also a political element in the Tao Te Ching: “Tao invariably takes no action, and yet there is nothing left undone. If kings and barons can keep it, all things will transform spontaneously”. Wars go against the Tao, because “the world will be at peace of its own accord”, and “violent and fierce people do not die a natural death”.
The Tao should not be seen as a God -- like Nirvana, we almost cannot grasp the essence of the Tao with our normal minds. Again, the Tao cannot be told and cannot be named, but it “flows everywhere … All things depend on it for life … it clothes and feeds all things but does not claim to be master over them”. It can perhaps be seen as a way of life as opposed to a form of organised religion.
Karen Lemme
ReplyDeleteShankara expresses how Brahman is the Ultimate Reality in Brahman is All. Shankara touches on three main points. The first point is that the universe that we perceive is really Brahman. His second point: Brahman is the one, nothing is comparable to Brahman; he is supreme. The final point he emphasizes through the repetition of “That art Thou”, with “That” being Brahman and “Thou” being Atman.
Brahman is the universe is paralleled to a clay jar. It is made of clay, with the actual structure of the jar having “no independent existence”. The universe is nothing but a superimposed image on Brahman, whatever an ignorant mind believes he or she is seeing, is only imagining that it is the universe. Shankara acknowledges that if the universe was a reality “we should continue to perceive it in deep sleep. But we perceive nothing then.” The universe is only a name for what people are imagining is Brahman.
The supremacy of Brahman is evident by epitomizing him as “uttermost reality, infinite, absolute, without parts—the pure consciousness”. Shankara states that Brahman is one, whose greatness cannot be measured. It draws upon Shankara’s first main point by stating that he is the “reality—the one without a second”, reiterating that the universe that we experience is nothing but Brahman.
Atman is one with Brahman, “That art Thou”, though we perceive ourselves as individuals (Atman), we are in actuality one with God (Brahman). Shankara acknowledges that the scriptures rebut any ideas of Brahman being a duality; it is the ignorance of humans. Man needs to lose his ignorance and imagination and “free himself from his consciousness of this objective world”, and realize “That art Thou”. Brahman is eternal, unchangeable, independent, bliss, etc. By meditating upon the truth of the scriptures and realizing that the Brahman is beyond a manifold universe, the truth of “That art Thou” will “become as plain to you as water held in the palm of your hand”.
The chapter begins with a very brief overview of who the Philosopher Ramanuja was. He was born into the Brahmin caste; the the highest caste in the Hindu caste system. The reading explained that, throughout the history of Hinduism, there have been many different schools of thought regarding the nature of the Brahman. One major school, Avaita Vedante, believes that the Brahman is non-dual. Ramanuja, though, was the chief proponent of a different Vendante Hinduism that focused on the importance of the individual soul being distinct from the Brahman and the importance of devotion to a personal God.
ReplyDeleteIn this section, Ramanuja explains the concept and nature of the Brahman. He explains that the Brahman is denoted the “Supreme Person” who is “free from all imperfections” and has qualities of “matchless excellence”. Brahman is applied to whatever possesses a quality of greatness, but is mostly used to describe something of matchless excellence. With that being said, the Brahman is a supreme person who is Lord of all. The Brahman posses many qualities, the big ones being knowledge and bliss. The Brahman has many traits and attributes that are upheld in the highest regard. They are holy and nonhuman, which is why they can, in the end, only be applied to Brahman. The reading continues by stating that without the Brahman, there would have been no creation, no continuation of life or the world itself.
After he goes to explain everything about the Brahman, he introduces the term “Supreme Brahman” or “Supreme Person”. The Supreme Brahman is removed beyond any trace of evil and has matchless excellence. He is described as having a “great ocean containing a host of all auspicious qualities” and is the cause of origination and the universe. So, since he is the soul cause of the entire universe, the duty of his followers is to worship him. It describes that when he is pleased, through worship, he grants his worshipers dharma, artha, karma and moska; allowing them to obtain bliss of matchless excellence.
The reading ended with a message from Brahman. It was set up like a prayer or a chant, with every line beginning with “Focus your mind on me”. The point of the chant is to achieve a steady concentration of your mind on Brahman. If that is unachievable at the time then you must try to attain him through what they called “the discipline of practice” . It is through that practice that you can remember Brahman with a “supremely excellent love”.
Nina Korman
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Shankara, the full summary of the section is simple; "Brahman is the universe". The section starts by saying Brahman alone is the universe and without him, it does not exist at all. As compared to a jar of clay, the jar is the effect of the clay like the universe is the effect of Brahman. Along with Brahman is the existence of Atman, which is the internal versions of ourselves, or the perception of ourselves.
The section continues to say that Brahman is supreme and external. He is the reality which can neither be ignored nor grasped. It is also said that Atman is Brahman by declaring "That art Thou" where "That" is Brahman, and "Thou" is Atman. Again, Brahman and Atman are two different identities where Brahman is God or external and Atman is the individual soul, but is we understand the true meaning of those terms, we can see that those two are one, therefore saying the individual soul and the external God make up the universe. "That art Thou" is repeated throughout the text as to meditate upon the truth of Brahman
Liz Doyle
ReplyDeleteGod as Infinite, Personal and Good
In this reading, Ramanuja, and Indian philosopher of the 11th century, argues for a dualistic view of the Brahman of Hinduism. He describes Brahman as being the Supreme Being, originator of the universe, good and removed from all evil and the reason for our continued existence. Ramanuja branches from Advaita Vedanta school of HInduism in his view of Brahman and the Ultimate Reality by arguing that Atram, or the individual reality, is distinct from Brahman.
However, Ramnuja admits that Brahman “is the inner Self of all”. This could be taken as similar to Shankara’s “That art Thou” view that Brahman is completely encompassing of our being, that is to say our individual existence is only an illusion that is created by Brahman. However, Ramanuja does argue that Brahman “is distinct in character from all nonintelligent things… and from all intelligent beings,” which goes against the “That art Thou” perception and reasserts Ramanuja’s dualistic view of the universe.
Ramanuja also describes the salvation in the devotion to Brahman. This deliverance that Ramanuja promises to devotees is a bliss in which they are not returned to samsara, or the cycle of birth and rebirth and are free from karma.
In an excerpt from Gitabhasya, Ramanuja gives a message from Brahman. The message calls for the devotion of Brahman in a prayer like form. Each statement begins with the phrase “Focus your mind on me” and then goes into describing Brahman as the Supreme Being, his brilliance, his loveliness, his mercy and finally how he is “the Master of all.” Ramanuja calls for the followers of Brahman as the Supreme Being to hold him in their continued consciousness with all his auspicious qualities and through that devotion they will be saved from the endless cycle of life and death.
Brian James Chepya
ReplyDeleteChapter 6 of Lao Tzu's "The Tao" is the first chapter in the text to mention spirit, "The spirit of the valley never dies/It is called the subtle and profound female/Is the root of Heaven and Earth". So what is this "spirit of the valley"? Is it the spirit of being or non-being? Or does the spirit arise from having faith in both being "the same"?
Accoring to Lao Tzu, there is only one Way (Tao). Yet, with Daoism, this so-called Way cannot be named or even spoken of. This is very unlike Shankara's Brahman, whereas one can become Brahman by "purify[ing] the heart" and other vague actions. For one can never become Tao, because "it flows everywhere".
A Daoist seems to thrive on not knowing the Way while trusting in it, a sort of supreme faith in the four great things in the universe:"the king, Earth, Heaven, and Tao". Each of the great things models itself to it's latter, "And Tao models itself after Nature". The Tao, described by Lao Tzu, seems to be the tapping into Nature and thereby achieving "the great" while never "striving for it".
Dimitria Parisis, The Tao
ReplyDeleteLao Tzu, in The Tao addresses the inability to know "it's" name (Tao), and goes on to say that "if forced to give it a name, I shall call it Great." Tzu defines great as far reaching and contious function. He also refers to heaven, earth, and the king as great. This is an important concept because it shows the inability of our language to completely describe this power or force. Here Tzu has no name for this force, other than Tao, and therefore uses "Great" to further define it in a concept that human beings can relate to. By describing Tao as Great, Tzu allows Tao to remain an omnipresent being that cannot be classified or tied to a specific set of qualities. The feeling of the unknown still remains, leaving the Tao up to interpretation.
Abigail Wald
ReplyDeleteWeek one's readings included John Hicks 'Religious Pluralism and the Pluralistic Hyposthesis.' In this essay he discusses a concept where in which he believes that the multi-religious world we live in is due to different cultural setting and circumstance. Hick also employs many of Kant's comparable beliefs when discussing the "post-axial faith" of the world. For example, Hick's whole essay is based on the notion that even though there are many religions in this world they all adhere to the thought of "reality centresness." This means that all these religions through the whole world have different perceptions and concepts they all still require for one to give up selfish ways and focus on the ultimate reality of the universe. Later in Hick's essay he employs his thought on multi faith concepts of God and their relationship with this unknown entity. He explains that even though there are different notions and relationship with this thing it is clear that belief in it is a necessary part of the human condition. To believe or have faith in something is only part of human nature and we employ this through religion. More importantly, that all humans treat each religion as a 'real.' This is most important because if one claims a specific religion to be invalid than we have to question the validity of each religion. What Hick, hints at in this essay is that Faith is more important than all the other validations that are used in logical. As humans we can never experience this world because just as we are, the world is in itself. All that we have is our individual experience of the world that we live in and cannot claim anything else. If this is all that we have to believe in, as humans, then we must have true belief in whatever explains the vastness of this universe to us best.
I agree that the religions we subscribe to have much to do with where in the world we were born as well as when. The cultures we are born into and raised in have much to do with our concept of religious belief and faith and I think more times than not people are caught up more in the cultural aspects of their religious traditions more than they are with an actual connection to God. It makes sense that different cultures would subscribe to different God's, but since religion is such a personal concept it is hard to step out of the box and consider someone else's belief above your own.
ReplyDeleteDimitria