2 of 2
2
Sience and Pilosophy
Posted: 12 January 2007 03:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15368
Joined  2006-02-14

[quote author=“cgallaga”]However all far east traditions and for the most part middle east (Remember the Abrahamic traditions are all eastern) are founded in an ineffable transcendent reality and source of all things…god.

And to ignore this type of god concept is to ignore some important eastern theologies, many that predate and some that are considered influential to modern Abrahamic concepts, including:

Gnosticism
Kabbalah
Sufism
Taoism
Tibetan Buddhism
Vedanta (Hinduism)
Yoga (Hinduism)
Zen (Buddhism)

Thanks for bringing up these ‘esoteric’ sects of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Chris. There certainly are a few that embrace confused notions of god ... but they are FAR from mainstream in (western) culture. I think it’s a bit quick to say they all believe in a simply ineffable or unknowable sort of god. Some do, some don’t. (Although they do tend to use obscurantist forms of reasoning).

As for Tibetan Buddhism and Zen ... I studied a bit in grad school with a Tibetan Buddhist professor. It certainly is true that Madhyhamika Buddhism has penetrated very far into Tibet. However, I would not equate Madhyamika with an unknowable sort of god. Tibetan/Madhyamika Buddhists do not believe in ‘god’, and insofar as they do believe in supernatural deities or creatures, they only exist ‘conventionally’.

The closest philosophical school I can find in the west to Madhyamika is simply nihilism.

Zen Buddhism is a particularly difficult example, since Zen (or better, chinese Ch’an, where japanese Zen originated) was born from two conflicting schools of Buddhist thought: the Madhyamika and the ‘mind only’ Yogacara school. As these have conflicting philosophical structures, Zen writers tend to revel in contradiction and confusion, and really just reject philosophizing of any sort. Fair enough, but that’s sort of different from a western ‘negative theology’ of the sort that would say that (1) god exists, and (2) god is unknowable/ineffable.

Hindu philosophy ( Vedanta ) is really not similar to this sort of negative theology, and indeed is philosophically every bit as complex, nuanced and profound as western theology. There are many schools of Vedanta, each with different ontological presuppositions. A few may be somewhat similar to western negative theologians, but only a few.

As for Yoga , “yoga” in Sanskrit just means (basically) “practice” ... and so the Hindu “yogic” practices are basically various forms of physical worship, intended to bring one closer to a sort of nirvanic state of mind. None require any sort of negative theology. (Although they have been interpreted as such by some moderns).

Taoism is perhaps somewhat closer to the western conception of an ineffable deity ... although I don’t really know very much about the practices and beliefs of Taoists so can’t be sure. Perhaps you know some in China?

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2007 12:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  226
Joined  2006-04-07

God is just “hid[ing] our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf.”  Its why is the tautology that God wills what He wills. No real explanation unlike the why and the how of science. Look at all the silly objections to Dawkins’s notions! I anticipate his responses. :?:

 Signature 

Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.He might be wrong!His cognitive defects might impact his posting. Logic is the bane of theists.‘Religion is mythinformation.“Reason saves, not that fanatic Galilean!
  ’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose.”

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2
 
‹‹ Retributive justice?      Some things... ››