[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 1.09 MB, 1145x904, Josep_Benlliure_Gil19.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11167862 No.11167862 [Reply] [Original]

How the FUCK did the medieval monks not come to conclusion of non-duality? Seriously, all the doctrinal, contemplative, meditative etc. conditions were there for them to have developed the idea of ecstatic union with God, but nope, the closest thing we got was "ok we're not God but if we believe really hard when can kinda sorta emulate Him."

And yeah, I know the reason why it never happened ("muh heresy"), but goddamn, reading up about the history of the medieval scholastics, insular christian philosophers, etc. is like a perfect example of "miss by an inch, miss by a mile."

>> No.11167885
File: 74 KB, 225x315, maximos-the-confessor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11167885

Stop reading the Latins.

>> No.11167892

Non-duality destroys the ecstatic union with God. That's why.

Being dissolved into God through pantheistic monism is not a proper union.

>> No.11167909

>>11167862
It’s what they’re afraid to talk about or consider imho. It’s funny, because it’s not just a feature of monotheism, look at the Sufis: they talk about non-duality to excess. Meister Eckhart is a great example of a theologian who dared to talk about non-duality/union with God, however. Theosis is also much bigger in Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic theology.

As for the ultimate reason why non-duality is so stigmatized in mainstream Western theology, who knows. The split between Western and Eastern philosophy, mysticism, and religious systems has been noted a long time, the reasons for it are mysterious. Why is non-duality and mysticism so prominent in the history of the East, and emphasis on rationality and antimysticism so much greater in the West? It may have been the stifling influence of the Catholic Church, an institution pretty much meant to keep itself in power and not have its followers have any rebellious ideas which might make them realize they don’t need the Church.

>> No.11167911

>>11167892
I would argue that temporary "unions" with God are not the proper union, desu

>>11167885
Aren't the Orthodox some of the biggest opponents of non-dualism? Especially considering they have hesychasm, which seems like it could produce a lot of enlightened teachers but has seemingly failed to do so.

>> No.11167926

>>11167911
>>11167892
The energy-essence distinction preserves ecstatic union with God without having to resort to dualism or collapsing the Trinity into monad.

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/lossky_essences.html

>> No.11167946

>>11167909
Pretty much, and why I'll always see the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon, even if they have cool aesthetics. The Protestants get many things wrong, but their opposition to Papal authority isn't one of them.

>>11167926
Sure, if you by into the essence-energies distinction in the first place. And as you can probably tell, I absolutely do not.

>> No.11167948

>>11167926
>The union to which we are called is neither hypostatic--as in the case of the human nature of Christ--nor substantial, as in that of the three divine Persons: it is union with God in His energies, or union by grace making us participate in the divine nature, without our essence becoming thereby the essence of God. In deification we are by grace (that is to say, in the divine energies) all that God is by nature, save only identity of nature . . ., according to the teaching of St. Maximus (De ambiguis). We remain creatures while becoming God by grace, as Christ remained God in becoming man by the Incarnation.

>> No.11167982

5 seconds on Bing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism#Christian_contemplation_and_mysticism

>> No.11167992

>>11167862
because the west fetishizes the self

>> No.11168015

>>11167982
Those are the few exceptions to the rule, tbqh. All other prominent theologians either weren't aware of the concept or rejected it. Your link even mentions how Thomism isn't explicitly non-dual.

>> No.11168018

>>11167862
>Implying nondualism is good
Fuck off, guenontard

>> No.11168061

>>11168018
>attributing an age-old mystical, philosophical, and theological concept to one person who talked about it in the 20th century
Cmon

>> No.11168117

Do you want to be executed as a Spinozian? Because that’s how you get executed as a Spinozian

>> No.11168215
File: 2.17 MB, 2592x3888, sdgkfjs;lsj;lkgjs;lkfsj;lkgf.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11168215

>>11167992
This

>> No.11168227

>>11168215
So much unbridled dukkha :(

>> No.11168275

>>11167862
any reading on this? Meister Eckhart has already been mentioned; I think some of the church fathers talk about this as well

>> No.11168313
File: 423 KB, 381x538, 1520000612340.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11168313

Through reason.

Read about what participation is btw. Fabro's Selected Articles on Metaphysics and Participation seems good for a start.

>>11167892
>pantheistic monism
stop that