|
1
registreret Arne Thomsen
217
gæster og
30
søgemaskiner online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Skribent: Hanskrist
Emne: Re: søndagstanker om illusioner
|
Noget til Jan, Esther, Michael, Thomas, Arne, Bjørn og RoseMarie at tænke over.
Her er en fremragende religionsfilosofisk analyse af Nicolas Berdyaev som rammer EKIM og new age, læs denne fremragende tekst (måske Michael eller Bjørn vil få den oversat via google):
There are two prototypes of non-Christian and pre-Christian mysticism which have persisted throughout Christian history and are still to be found surviving in our day. One of these is the Hindu mysticism of identity, of absolute abstraction from the plural world, of absorption in the Brahman. This is an attempt at a mysticism of pure spirituality. It is an acosmic mysticism. Brahman and Atman, Deity and soul, are identical. The realization of the Atman is likewise a realization of the Brahman. Sankara, whom P. Otto compares with Eckhart, is a typical representative of this school. God is represented as a super-existential non-being. It would be simpler to call this type of mysticism pantheism. It is a logical apophatic mysticism, one of renunciation and abstraction from any concrete being, from any cosmic and human plurality. It might also be said that the world of becoming, the composite and transitory world, is not authentic being, [/color]whereas the escape from it in search of the One is a passage towards authentic being; and that this world is being, but an escape from it is a passage to super-being. [color:#009900]The evil and suffering of the plural sensible world are discarded through an act of abnegation and concentration on the abstract non-concrete One. This is an austere and unloving mysticism. The absence of love is explained by the fact that this mysticism is unconscious of the personality; it is concerned with abdiction rather than preserving the personality. As we have already shown, love is the relation of one personality to another. Tat twam asi is a term which denotes not love or the union of oneself with another, but the discovery in another person of identical characteristics, thus suppressing personal being. Love, on the other hand, postulates differentiation, the existence of another personality rather than the identity of personalities. The differences between Greek and Hindu philosophies apart, the mysticism of Plotinus answers to this type. It is also a mysticism of the One which is attainable through an abnegation and abstraction of the plural world. In Plotinus there is no mystery of the personality, and therefor no mystery of love. In Platonic and Neo-Platonic philosophy Eros aspires to good, supreme happiness, beauty rather than to concrete being or personality. As in Hindu mysticism, The One is super-being and is realized apophatically. Our soul is essentially Divine through spirit, through nous. The act of mystical contemplation is identical with the object contemplated, intellection is identical with the intelligible. This is a form of mystical monism, affirming the existence only of the One. Thus the spiritual path leads from complex plurality to simple unity. Being is identical with mind, with nous. In Hindu and Platonic mysticism everything is diamentrically opposed to the dialogical and dramatic relationship between man and God, between one personality and another, as revealed in the Bible. Spirituality is interpreted as being opposed to the personality, and therefore as independent of love, human freedom, and a relation between the plural and the One. The mystical way is that of gnosis rather than of Eros. Eros, too, is explained as a want, as a need of fulfilment rather than as a gift of abundance. These mystical elements have survived in the Christian world; they may be traced in Christian Neo-Platonism, in Eckhart's mysticism, in Quietism. Nicholas Berdyaev "Spirit and Reality".
Citatet er fra Berdyaev's bog "Spirit and Reality".
mange kærlige vilde Osho hilsner til jer alle
HansKrist
|
|
|
|
