2021/09/15

Nontheistic religion - Wikipedia 2021

Nontheistic religion - Wikipedia

Nontheistic religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

Nontheistic religions are traditions of thought within a religious context—some otherwise aligned with theism, others not—in which nontheism informs religious beliefs or practices.[1] Nontheism has been applied and plays significant roles in progressivismHinduismBuddhism, and Jainism. While many approaches to religion exclude nontheism by definition, some inclusive definitions of religion show how religious practice and belief do not depend on the presence of (a) god(s). For example, Paul James and Peter Mandaville distinguish between religion and spirituality, but provide a definition of the term that avoids the usual reduction to "religions of the book":

Religion can be defined as a relatively-bounded system of beliefs, symbols and practices that addresses the nature of existence, and in which communion with others and Otherness is lived as if it both takes in and spiritually transcends socially-grounded ontologies of time, space, embodiment and knowing.[2]

Buddhism[edit source]

The gods Śakra (left) and Brahmā (right)

Existence of gods[edit source]

The Buddha said that devas (translated as "gods") do exist, but they were regarded as still being trapped in samsara,[3] and are not necessarily wiser than humans. In fact, the Buddha is often portrayed as a teacher of the gods,[4] and superior to them.[5]

Since the time of the Buddha, the denial of the existence of a creator deity has been seen as a key point in distinguishing Buddhist from non-Buddhist views.[6] The question of an independent creator deity was answered by the Buddha in the Brahmajala Sutta. The Buddha denounced the view of a creator and sees that such notions are related to the false view of eternalism, and like the 61 other views, this belief causes suffering when one is attached to it and states these views may lead to desire, aversion and delusion. At the end of the Sutta the Buddha says he knows these 62 views and he also knows the truth that surpasses them. Later Buddhist philosophers also extensively criticized the idea of an eternal creator deity concerned with humanity.[7]

Metaphysical questions[edit source]

On one occasion, when presented with a problem of metaphysics by the monk Malunkyaputta, the Buddha responded with the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow. When a man is shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, his family summons a doctor to have the poison removed, and the doctor gives an antidote:[8]

But the man refuses to let the doctor do anything before certain questions can be answered. The wounded man demands to know who shot the arrow, what his caste and job is, and why he shot him. He wants to know what kind of bow the man used and how he acquired the ingredients used in preparing the poison. Malunkyaputta, such a man will die before getting the answers to his questions. It is no different for one who follows the Way. I teach only those things necessary to realize the Way. Things which are not helpful or necessary, I do not teach.

Christianity[edit source]

Bust of Paul Tillich

A few liberal Christian theologians define a "nontheistic God" as "the ground of all being" rather than as a personal divine being.

Many of them owe much of their theology to the work of Christian existentialist philosopher Paul Tillich, including the phrase "the ground of all being". Another quotation from Tillich is, "God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."[9] This Tillich quotation summarizes his conception of God. He does not think of God as a being that exists in time and space, because that constrains God, and makes God finite. But all beings are finite, and if God is the Creator of all beings, God cannot logically be finite since a finite being cannot be the sustainer of an infinite variety of finite things. Thus God is considered beyond being, above finitude and limitation, the power or essence of being itself.[citation needed]

From a nontheistic, naturalist, and rationalist perspective, the concept of divine grace appears to be the same concept as luck.[10]

Nontheist Quakers[edit source]

Logo of the Society of Nontheist Friends

A nontheist Friend or an atheist Quaker is someone who affiliates with, identifies with, engages in and/or affirms Quaker practices and processes, 

but who does not accept a belief in a theistic understanding of God, a Supreme Being, the divine, the soul or the supernatural

Like theistic Friends, nontheist Friends are actively interested in realizing centered peace, simplicity, integrity, community, equality, lovehappiness and social justice in the Society of Friends and beyond.

Hinduism[edit source]

Hinduism is characterised by extremely diverse beliefs and practices.[11] In the words of R.C. Zaehner, "it is perfectly possible to be a good Hindu whether one's personal views incline toward monismmonotheismpolytheism, or even atheism."[12] He goes on to say that it is a religion that neither depends on the existence or non-existence of God or Gods.[13] More broadly, Hinduism can be seen as having three more important strands: one featuring a personal Creator or Divine Being, second that emphasises an impersonal Absolute and a third that is pluralistic and non-absolute. The latter two traditions can be seen as nontheistic.[14]

Although the Vedas are broadly concerned with the completion of ritual, there are some elements that can be interpreted as either nontheistic or precursors to the later developments of the nontheistic tradition. The oldest Hindu scripture, the Rig Veda mentions that 'There is only one god though the sages may give it various names' (1.164.46). Max Müller termed this henotheism, and it can be seen as indicating one, non-dual divine reality, with little emphasis on personality.[15] The famous Nasadiya Sukta, the 129th Hymn of the tenth and final Mandala (or chapter) of the Rig Veda, considers creation and asks "The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. /Who then knows whence it has arisen?".[16] This can be seen to contain the intuition that there must be a single principle behind all phenomena: 'That one' (tad ekam), self-sufficient, to which distinctions cannot be applied.[17][18]

It is with the Upanishads, reckoned to be written in the first millennia (coeval with the ritualistic Brahmanas), that the Vedic emphasis on ritual was challenged. The Upanishads can be seen as the expression of new sources of power in India. Also, separate from the Upanishadic tradition were bands of wandering ascetics called Vadins whose largely nontheistic notions rejected the notion that religious knowledge was the property of the Brahmins. Many of these were shramanas, who represented a non-Vedic tradition rooted in India's pre-Aryan history.[19] The emphasis of the Upanishads turned to knowledge, specifically the ultimate identity of all phenomena.[20] This is expressed in the notion of Brahman, the key idea of the Upanishads, and much later philosophizing has been taken up with deciding whether Brahman is personal or impersonal.[21] The understanding of the nature of Brahman as impersonal is based in the definition of it as 'ekam eva advitiyam' (Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1) – it is one without a second and to which no substantive predicates can be attached.[22] Further, both the Chandogya and Brihadaranyaka Upanishads assert that the individual atman and the impersonal Brahman are one.[23] The mahāvākya statement Tat Tvam Asi, found in the Chandogya Upanishad, can be taken to indicate this unity.[24] The latter Upanishad uses the negative term Neti neti to 'describe' the divine.

Patañjali statue in Pantanjali Yog Peeth Haridwar

Classical SamkhyaMimamsa, early Vaisheshika and early Nyaya schools of Hinduism do not accept the notion of an omnipotent creator God at all.[25][26] While the Sankhya and Mimamsa schools no longer have significant followings in India, they are both influential in the development of later schools of philosophy.[27][28] The Yoga of Patanjali is the school that probably owes most to the Samkhya thought. This school is dualistic, in the sense that there is a division between 'spirit' (Sanskrit: purusha) and 'nature' (Sanskrit: prakṛti).[29] It holds Samadhi or 'concentrative union' as its ultimate goal[30] and it does not consider God's existence as either essential or necessary to achieving this.[31]

The Bhagavad Gita, contains passages that bear a monistic reading and others that bear a theistic reading.[32] Generally, the book as a whole has been interpreted by some who see it as containing a primarily nontheistic message,[33] and by others who stress its theistic message.[34] These broadly either follow after either Sankara or Ramanuja[35] An example of a nontheistic passage might be "The supreme Brahman is without any beginning. That is called neither being nor non-being," which Sankara interpreted to mean that Brahman can only be talked of in terms of negation of all attributes—'Neti neti'.[36]

The Advaita Vedanta of Gaudapada and Sankara rejects theism as a consequence of its insistence that Brahman is "Without attributes, indivisible, subtle, inconceivable, and without blemish, Brahman is one and without a second. There is nothing other than He."[37] This means that it lacks properties usually associated with God such as omniscience, perfect goodness, omnipotence, and additionally is identical with the whole of reality, rather than being a causal agent or ruler of it.[38]

Jainism[edit source]

Jain texts claim that the universe consists of jiva (life force or souls) and ajiva (lifeless objects). According to Jain doctrine, the universe and its constituents-soul, matter, space, time, and principles of motion-have always existed. The universe and the matter and souls within it are eternal and uncreated, and there is no omnipotent creator god. Jainism offers an elaborate cosmology, including heavenly beings/devas, but these heavenly beings are not viewed as creators-they are subject to suffering and change like all other living beings, and are portrayed as mortal.

According to the Jain concept of divinity, any soul who destroys its karmas and desires, achieves liberation/Nirvana. A soul who destroys all its passions and desires has no desire to interfere in the working of the universe. If godliness is defined as the state of having freed one's soul from karmas and the attainment of enlightenment/Nirvana and a god as one who exists in such a state, then those who have achieved such a state can be termed gods (Tirthankara).

Besides scriptural authority, Jains also employ syllogism and deductive reasoning to refute creationist theories. Various views on divinity and the universe held by the VedicsSāmkhyasMimamsas, Buddhists, and other school of thoughts were criticized by Jain Ācāryas, such as Jinasena in Mahāpurāna.

Others[edit source]

Philosophical models not falling within established religious structures, such as DaoismConfucianismEpicureanismDeism, and Pandeism, have also been considered to be nontheistic religions.[39]

The Satanic Temple, a sect of modern or rational Satanism, was officially recognized as a nontheistic religion in the United States on 25 April 2019.[40]

The white supremacist Creativity movement has also been described as a nontheistic religion.[41]

See also[edit source]

References[edit source]

  1. ^ Williams, J. Paul; Horace L. Friess (1962). "The Nature of Religion". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Blackwell Publishing. 2 (1): 3–17. doi:10.2307/1384088JSTOR 1384088.
  2. ^ James, Paul; Mandaville, Peter (2010). Globalization and Culture, Vol. 2: Globalizing Religions. London: Sage Publications. p. xii–xiii.
  3. ^ John T Bullitt (2005). "The Thirty-one planes of Existence". Access To Insight. Retrieved 26 May 2010The suttas describe thirty-one distinct "planes" or "realms" of existence into which beings can be reborn during this long wandering through samsara. These range from the extraordinarily dark, grim, and painful hell realms to the most sublime, refined, and exquisitely blissful heaven realms. Existence in every realm is impermanent; in Buddhist cosmology there is no eternal heaven or hell. Beings are born into a particular realm according to both their past kamma and their kamma at the moment of death. When the kammic force that propelled them to that realm is finally exhausted, they pass away, taking rebirth once again elsewhere according to their kamma. And so the wearisome cycle continues.
  4. ^ Susan Elbaum Jootla (1997). "II. The Buddha Teaches Deities". In Access To Insight (ed.). Teacher of the Devas. Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society. Many people worship Maha Brahma as the supreme and eternal creator God, but for the Buddha he is merely a powerful deity still caught within the cycle of repeated existence. In point of fact, "Maha Brahma" is a role or office filled by different individuals at different periods." "His proof included the fact that "many thousands of deities have gone for refuge for life to the recluse Gotama" (MN 95.9). Devas, like humans, develop faith in the Buddha by practicing his teachings." "A second deva concerned with liberation spoke a verse which is partly praise of the Buddha and partly a request for teaching. Using various similes from the animal world, this god showed his admiration and reverence for the Exalted One.", "A discourse called Sakka's Questions (DN 21) took place after he had been a serious disciple of the Buddha for some time. The sutta records a long audience he had with the Blessed One which culminated in his attainment of stream-entry. Their conversation is an excellent example of the Buddha as "teacher of devas," and shows all beings how to work for Nibbana.
  5. ^ Bhikku, Thanissaro (1997). Kevaddha Sutta. Access To Insight. When this was said, the Great Brahma said to the monk, 'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be... That is why I did not say in their presence that I, too, don't know where the four great elements... cease without remainder. So you have acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing the Blessed One in search of an answer to this question elsewhere. Go right back to the Blessed One and, on arrival, ask him this question. However he answers it, you should take it to heart.
  6. ^ B. Alan Wallace, Contemplative Science. Columbia University Press, 2007, pages 97–98.
  7. ^ Principled Atheism in the Buddhist Scholastic Tradition
  8. ^ Nhat Hanh, Thich (1991). Old Path White Clouds: walking in the footsteps of the Buddha. Parallax Press. p. 299ISBN 0-938077-26-0.
  9. ^ Tillich, Paul. (1951) Systematic Theology, p.205.
  10. ^ Kaufman, Arnold S. "Ability", The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 60, No. 19
  11. ^ Catherine Robinson, Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gītā and Images of the Hindu Tradition: The Song of the Lord. Routledge Press, 1992, page 17.
  12. ^ Catherine Robinson, Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gītā and Images of the Hindu Tradition: The Song of the Lord. Routledge Press, 1992, page 51.
  13. ^ R. C. Zaehner, (1966) Hinduism, P.1-2, Oxford University Press.
  14. ^ Griffiths, Paul J, (2005) Nontheistic Conceptions of the Divine Ch. 3. in The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion by William J Wainwright, p.59 . Oxford University Press .
  15. ^ Masih, Y. A comparative study of religions, P.164, Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2000 ISBN 81-208-0815-0
  16. ^ O'Flaherty, Wendy Doniger, (1981)The Rig Veda: An Anthology of One Hundred Eight Hymns (Classic) Penguin
  17. ^ Collinson, Diané and Wilkinson, Robert Thirty-Five Oriental Philosophers, P. 39, Routledge, 1994 ISBN 0-415-02596-6
  18. ^ Mohanty, Jitendranath (2000), Classical Indian Philosophy: An Introductory Text, p:1 Rowman & Littlefield, ISBN 0-8476-8933-6
  19. ^ Jaroslav Krejčí, Anna Krejčová (1990) Before the European Challenge: The Great Civilizations of Asia and the Middle East, p:170, SUNY Press, ISBN 0-7914-0168-5
  20. ^ Doniger, Wendy, (1990) Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions, P. 441, Merriam-Webster, ISBN 0-87779-044-2
  21. ^ Smart, Ninian (1998) The World's Religions P.73-74, CUP ISBN 0-521-63748-1
  22. ^ Wainwright, William J. (2005) Ch.3 Nontheistic conceptions of the divine. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Religion p.67 OUP, ISBN 0-19-513809-0
  23. ^ Jones, Richard H. (2004) Mysticism and Morality: A New Look at Old Questions, P. 80, Lexington Books, ISBN 0-7391-0784-4
  24. ^ Brown, Robert L, (1991) Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God, SUNY Press, ISBN 0-7914-0656-3.
  25. ^ Larson, Gerald James, Ch. Indian Conceptions of Reality and Divinity found in A Companion to World Philosophies By Eliot Deutsch, Ronald Bontekoe, P. 352, Blackwell, ISBN 0-631-21327-9
  26. ^ Morgan, Kenneth W. and Sarma, D S, Eds. (1953) Ch. 5. P.207 Hindu Religious Thought by Satis Chandra Chatterjee, The Religion of the Hindus: Interpreted by Hindus, Ronald Press. ISBN 81-208-0387-6
  27. ^ Flood, Gavin D, An Introduction to Hinduism,(p.232) CUP, ISBN 0-521-43878-0
  28. ^ Larson, Gerald James,(1999) Classical Samkhya, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, ISBN 81-208-0503-8
  29. ^ Feuerstein, Georg (1989), Yoga: The Technology of Ecstasy, Tarcher, ISBN 0-87477-520-5
  30. ^ King, Richard (1999) Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought, p:191, Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 0-7486-0954-7
  31. ^ Clements, Richard Pauranik, Being a Witness in Theory and Practice of Yoga by Knut A. Jacobsen
  32. ^ Yandell, Keith. E., On Interpreting the "Bhagavadgītā", Philosophy East and West 32, no 1 (January 1982).
  33. ^ Catherine Robinson, Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gītā and Images of the Hindu Tradition: The Song of the Lord. Routledge Press, 1992, page 45, 98, 115, 136.
  34. ^ Catherine Robinson, Interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gītā and Images of the Hindu Tradition: The Song of the Lord. Routledge Press, 1992, pages 47, 51.
  35. ^ Flood, Gavin D, An Introduction to Hinduism, (pps 239-234) CUP, ISBN 0-521-43878-0
  36. ^ Swami Gambhirananda, (1995), Bhagavadgita: with the Commentary of Sankaracharya, Ch. 13. Vs. 13, Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta ISBN 81-7505-150-7
  37. ^ Richards, John, Viveka-Chudamani of Shankara Vs 468.
  38. ^ Wainright, William, (2006), Concepts of God, Stanford Encyclopedia of Religion
  39. ^ Charles Brough (2010). The Last Civilization. p. 246. ISBN 1426940572Deism and pan-deism, as well as agnosticism and atheism, are all Non-Theisms.
  40. ^ "Satanic Temple: IRS has designated it a tax-exempt church"AP NEWS. 25 April 2019. Retrieved 30 July 2019.
  41. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/24/neo-nazi-bought-church-with-plans-to-name-it-after-trump-a-fire-destroyed-it/


비신론

위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전.
둘러보기로 이동검색으로 이동

비신론(非神論, nontheism) 또는 비유신론은 무신론의 대안으로 제시된 용어다.

무신론의 주장은 “신이라는 것이 있는데 그것은 존재하지 않는다.”라고 비춰질 수 있는데, 이땐 허구의 존재든 그렇지 않든 우선 신을 가정한다고 볼 수 있다. 비신론은 애초에 신이라는 존재를 가정하는 것에서도 벗어나고자 하는 것이라 할 수 있다. 이는 우선 무신론을 공산주의나 전체주의 등과 함께 부정적으로 분류되는 것을 피하고자 하는 목적에서 시도되기도 하고, 불가지론과 무신론, 반신론을 모두 묶기 위해서 쓰기도 하며, 심지어는 몇몇 진보주의 종교의 반교조주의적인 성격을 나타내는데 쓰이기도 한다. 그래서 서양의 관점에선 불교가 비신론으로 간주되기도 한다.


==

非有神論

出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)』
ナビゲーションに移動検索に移動

非有神論(ひゆうしんろん、英語:Nontheism)は、「宗教的」[1]か「非宗教的」[2]かに関わらず、神を必要としない信仰、神の不在を信じる者、有神論に否定的な無神論者等を含めた広い範囲を対象とする用語である。

使用の始まり[編集]

1853年、ジョージ・ヤコブ・ホリョークがハイフン付きのNon-theismを使ったのが始まりである[3]

関連項目[編集]

参考文献[編集]

  1. ^ Williams, J. Paul; Horace L. Friess (1962). “The Nature of Religion”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Blackwell Publishing) 2 (1): 3–17. doi:10.2307/1384088JSTOR 1384088.
  2. ^ Starobin, Paul. “The Godless Rise As A Political Force”. The National Journal. 2010年7月29日閲覧。
  3. ^ "The Reasoner", New Series, No. VIII. 115

Philo Kalia 폴 틸리히의 [19-20세기 프로테스탄트사상사] Tillich, A History of Christian Thought 1972


Philo Kalia 심광섭
2Smns2hoorfe ·

신학을 공부하는 <토요독서모임>에서 지난 1년 위르겐 몰트만의 책 5권을 읽었다. 이번에는 한 학도의 제안으로 폴 틸리히의 <19-20세기 프로테스탄트사상사>를 읽게 되었다. 이 책은 1980년 송기득 교수께서 처음 번역했는데, 그동안 판과 인쇄를 거듭해 출간되고 있다. 40년 이상 계속 나오고 있으니 참으로 장수하는 귀한 책이다. 그만큼 근대 사상사에 대한 서술이 탁월하다는 말일거다. 이번에 이 책을 읽으면, 이 책만 대략 대여섯 번째 읽게 된다. 그러나 아쉬운 것은 간간이 생긴 오역을 바로잡지 않는다는 점이다. 매우 유감스럽다. 내가 발견하는 이 책의 탁월한 점은 다음의 것들이다.

1)저자가 역사학자가 아니라 조직신학자이자 철학적 신학자이기 때문에 역사 서술을 위한 선택, 해석의 관점에서 틸리히 신학의 특징을 읽어낼 수 있다는 점이다. 역사의 서술은 역사적 사건을 무미건조하게 나열하는 것이 아니라 선택하고 해석하는 작업이다.

2)이 책의 허리는 슐라이어마허와 헤겔을 다룬 부분이다. 종교개혁 이후, 정통주의, 경건주의, 합리주의와 계몽주의 그리고 낭만주의를 지나면서 분화된 사상들의 종합을 시도한 사상가들이다. 슐라이어마허는 신학자로서, 헤겔은 철학자로서 이 일을 시도했고, 종합의 시도는 틸리히의 관심이기도 했다.

3)이 책은 계몽주의 시대를 다룸에서 이성적 근대만이 아니라 낭만적 근대를 다룬다는 점이다. 이 점에서 틸리히는 개신교 신학자로서 ‘예술신학’의 개척자이다. 틸리히는 프로테스탄티즘이 도덕적 계율의 비신비적 체계가 되어 버렸음을 늘 안타깝게 여긴다. 이것을 극복하는 길은 신적 현존과 인간의 신체험을 진지하게 수용하는 것이다. 그의 신학에 ‘철학적 신학’, ‘문화신학’이란 명칭은 늘 따라 붙었던 이름이다. 그러나 틸리히가 근대는 이성의 시대만이 아니라 감성의 시대이기도 했다는 면을 부각하는 것은 실로 경이롭다. 낭만주의는 계몽주의를 비판함으로써 이성주의적 근대의 어두운 그늘을 드러낸다. 기독교 사상사에서 낭만주의를 포함한 책은 거의 없다는 점을 감안할 때 틸리히의 역사를 보는 안목은 이미 이성 중심의 근대성을 넘어서고 있다.

4)틸리히는 계몽주의 본질을 네 가지(자율, 이성, 자연, 조화)로 제시하는데, 첫째가 자율(自律, autonomy)이다. 타율(他律, heteronomy)에 의해 지배된 질서를 비판하고 무너뜨리는 독보적 힘은 인간의 자율에 있다. 자율은 가장 숭고한 인간 존엄성의 근거이다. 그러나 틸리히는 신학자로서 자율로 만족하지 않고 신율(神律, theonomy)을 말한다. 신율이란 자율의 신적 근거를 알고, 신적 근거에 잇댄 자율이다.
 
5)틸리히는 이성의 개념을 비판성이 아니라 보편성부터 서술한다. 보편성, 비판성, 직관성 그리고 기술적 이성이다. 틸리히는 기술적 이성을 비판만 하는 것이 아니라 기술적 이성이 지닌 도구성의 긍정적 차원을 역설한다. 특히 신학자가 신학자로서 남기를 원한다면 그것을 경멸해서는 안 될 것이다, 라고 말한다. 그의 제자 중 한 사람인 아도르노 이후 이성의 도구성을 비판하는 것과 다른 양상이다.

6)
  • 전통주의는 신앙에 우위를 두었고, 정통주의는 신앙과 사변을 택했으며, 
  • 계몽주의는 학문과 이성을 택했다면 
  • 슐라이어마허와 헤겔은 신앙과 이성, 신학과 학문, 영성과 지성 등, 양자의 종합을 선택하여 종합을 만들어 낸 사상가들이다. 
특히 르네상스 이후, 17-18세기에 형성된 새로운 인간 이해를 신학이 통합했다. 이 둘은 합성 진주가 아니라 진짜 진주로서 오늘에 이르는 사상사 전체에 커다란 영향을 끼쳤다고 틸리히는 평가한다. 그런 의미에서 위대한 종합이다.

7)이 위대한 종합은 헤겔이 사망하기도 전에 파열되기 시작하는데, 포이어바흐와 마르크스, 쇼펜하우어와 니체에 의해 대대적으로 폭탄처럼 터진다. 틸리히는 이들 이전에 독일 관념주의 철학에서도 잠깐만 언급하는 셸링을 크게 다룬다. 근대 기독교 사상사에서 낭만주의와 셸링의 사상사적 의미를 언급하는 책은 틸리히가 유일할 것이다.
 
8)20세기 신학사상에 대한 언급은 빈약하다. 아마 자신이 아직 살고 있었던 시대이기 때문이었으리라 추측한다. 그러나 새로운 신학운동에 대한 촉감은 예리하다.






91Hyun Ju Kim, Paul Dongwon Goh and 89 others
23 comments
InSun Na

송기득 교수님이 이 책을 처음 번역을 하시고, 수업을 하실 때, 책을 읽고 오역을 지적한 학생이 있어서 교정을 하는대 많은 도움을 받았다고 하셨고, 일본어 번역책을 우선 참고 하신 것 같습니다!

===

A History of Christian Thought: From its Judaic and Hellenistic Origins to Existentialism by Paul Tillich | Goodreads


2021/09/14

希修 짜증, 미움, 원한을 다스리는 법에 대한 초기불교의 가르침

(5) Facebook

希修

< 짜증, 미움, 원한을 다스리는 법에 대한 초기불교의 가르침
>
.
1. 호흡의 안정과 몸의 이완에만 우선 집중하고, 그때까지 다른 생각은 잠깐만! 중지할 것.
.
2. 상대방이 ‘잘못’했다는 내 판단의 근거를 스스로 집요하게 캐묻고 의심할 것. 나의 감정, 해석, 기대, 가치관, 전제에 대한 책임을 타인에게 지우지 말 것.
.
3. 상대방이 실제로! 잘못했을 경우, 적의로 가득한 나 자신을 영양실조 + 탈수 + 탈진의 상태로 여기고서 상대방의 장점을 찾아 볼 것. (당장 내 마음 편하자고 상대의 잘못을 억지로 합리화, 미화하는 일은, 화라는 악을 어리석음이라는 악으로 대체하는 것일 뿐.) 상대의 장점이나 선행을 기억해 낼 수 있거든 그 부분을 '내 목숨을 부지하기 위한 한 모금의 물'처럼 소중히 여기고 고맙게 생각할 것. 내가 적의 가득한 마음으로 살 경우 내세에 지옥으로 윤회하는 것은 상대가 아니라 나 자신이므로.
.
4. 상대의 장점이나 선행을 단 한 가지도 생각해 낼 수 없을 경우엔, 어리석음으로 인해 악업만 짓고 있는 상대방에 대한 goodwill과 compassion을 가질 것. 타인의 잘못과 나의 마음을 분리하여, 상대의 잘못은 그의 악업이고 화내고 미워하는 나의 마음은 나의 악업임을 기억할 것.
.
5. 사실을 말하기도 하고 거짓을 말하기도 하고, 칭찬을 하기도 하고 모함을 하기도 하며, 바른 이의 편에 서기도 하고 바르지 못한 이의 편에 서기도 하는 것이 인간 세계의 정상적인! 모습임을 기억할 것. 모든 사람이 내가 바라는 꼭 그대로 행동할 수도 없고 내가 남의 언행을 제어할 수도 없음을, 타인의 입장에서 볼 때는 나 역시 그러함을, 이것이 인간계의 수준이고 한계임을 기억할 것. (재가자의 경우 사회적 차원에서 필요한 일은 그것대로 하더라도 마음은 이렇게 가지라는 의미가 아닐까 싶습니다.)
.
6. 타인이 잘못한다고 해서 적의를 가지면 그쪽에서도 내게 적의를 가질 것이며, 이런 식으로 원한과 미움은 영원히 악순환될 뿐임을 기억할 것. 그렇다고 상대를 억지로 긍정적으로 생각하거나 친하게 지내려 무리할 것도 없고 서로를 놓아 주면 충분. '너랑 나는 안 맞지만 너는 너대로 행복하기를 바란다.'라거나 '니가 나한테는 실수를 했지만 언젠가 깨닫고서 같은 실수를 반복하지 않음으로써 네 자신의 앞날에 복을 쌓기를 바란다.' 정도의 마음이면 충분한 goodwill.
.
7. 계속 얼굴 보며 살아야 하는 상황이라면, 상대 언행의 디테일에 대해 신경을 끄고 심리적 거리를 유지함으로써 외부 세계에 의해 영향받지 않는 평정심을 유지할 것. (있는 그대로를 모두 정확히 알아차리면서도 외부에 의해 영향 받지 않는 평정심이지, 인지부조화나 자발적 무지를 댓가로 하여 얻는 평정심이 절대 아님을 기억하는 것이 중요.) 내 신경을 긁는 얘기를 상대가 하더라도, 나를 ‘해치는’ 것은 타인의 말이 아니라 내 스스로 짓는 악업일 뿐임을 기억할 것. 누군가가 실수로 불유쾌한 소음을 냈을 때 그 소음을 나의 감정적 반응으로까지 연결시키지 않고 그냥 지나치듯이, 그렇게 그저 무심히 지나칠 것. 나의 짜증, 분노, 비난으로써 타인을 바꾸는 일은 불가능함을, 내가 지금보다 10배, 100배로 화를 내도 나의 화 때문에 상대방이 바뀌는 일은 일어나지 않을 것임을 기억할 것.
.
8. 마음이 힘들 때마다 '나의 goodwill은 바다만큼, 지구만큼, 우주만큼 넓고 크다!'고 상상하면서, 어리석은 상대방, 그로 인해 고통 받는 어리석은 나, 그리고 그 외의 모든 존재들에 대한 goodwill과 compassion을 회복, 유지할 것.
.
14Hyun Ju Kim, Sungsoo Hong and 12 others

希修

불과 5개월 전 쓴 이 글에 어떤 페친분께서 어제 좋아요를 누르셔서 나도 다시 보게 되었는데.. 예전 글을 볼 때 대개는 '아, 맞아. 내가 이런 애기를 했었지.' 하고 금방 기억이 나는 데 비해, 이 글은 마치 남이 쓴 글을 생전 처음 보는 듯 생소한 느낌이 들어 나 스스로도 정말 많이 놀랐다. 실천은 커녕, 이론 자체도 이렇게 적어놓기만 하고서 새까맣게 잊어먹고 있었다는 얘기 말고는 당최 설명 방법이 없는 것. 지식이 족족 체화되는 것은 물론 아니지만, 노력하긴 했던 거 맞나 싶을 만큼 노력 자체가 너무 부족했기에 나 자신 경험해야 했던 (그리고 분명히 주위에도 끼쳤을) 불필요한 스트레스를 생각하니.. 한심하도다..

[오늘뉴스] 원광대,한국연구재단 인문사회연구소 지원 사업 선정

[오늘뉴스] 원광대,한국연구재단 인문사회연구소 지원 사업 선정

원광대,한국연구재단 인문사회연구소 지원 사업 선정
이영노 2021.09.14 08:34

‘간재집(艮齋集) 정본화 및 DB구축’ 사업 수행





▲ 간재 전우 문집 © 이영노

[오늘뉴스=이영노 기자]원광대가 교육부에서 지원하고, 한국연구재단이 운영하는 ‘2021년 한국연구재단 인문사회연구소 지원 사업’에 최종 선정됐다.

이번에 선정된 연구 사업은 원광대 한문번역연구소(소장 이의강)에서 수행하는 ‘간재집(艮齋集) 정본화와 DB구축’으로 2021년 9월부터 2027년 8월까지 6년간 총 21억 규모의 사업비를 지원받는다.



▲ 정경훈 교수 © 이영노


연구책임자인 정경훈(사진) 교수는 “간재 전우(1841-1922)는 호남을 대표하는 상징적 의미를 지닌 조선의 마지막 유학자”라며 “이 사업은 그의 문집을 정본화하는 연구”라고 밝혔다.

간재 전우의 문집은 기존에 공개된 문집과 외에도 모운문고(충남대)와 연구책임자 개인소장본을 비롯해 여러 형태로 출간된 문집들이 존재하고 있으며, 이번 연구는 기존에 공개된 5종에 이르는 방대한 분량의 전우 문집 자료인 용동본, 진주본, 화도수정본, 충남대 소장본, 구산잡저/풍아/지설 등과 연구책임자가 소장 중인 원고본을 새롭게 추가해 새로운 체제의 ‘정본 간재집’을 만드는 작업이다.

기사입력: 2021/09/14 [08:34]
최종편집: ⓒ 오늘뉴스

[창작과비평 특별좌담01- 04] 우리 사상사의 빛나는 유산! 동학과 ⌈동경대전⌋ - 백낙청 박맹수 도올김용옥

[창작과비평 특별좌담01] 우리 사상사의 빛나는 유산! 동학과 ⌈동경대전⌋ - 백낙청 박맹수 도올김용옥 - 다시 동학을 찾아 오늘의 길을 묻다 1편 - YouTube




59:50NOW PLAYING
[창작과비평 특별좌담03] 개벽을 논한다! 수운과 소태산, 동학과 원불교에 대하여 - 백낙청 박맹수 도올김용옥 - 다시 동학을 찾아 오늘의 길을 묻다 3편




44:31NOW PLAYING
[창작과비평 특별좌담02] 백낙청과 도올 김용옥, 서양 사상을 말하다 - 다시 동학을 찾아 오늘의 길을 묻다 2편 - 귀신을 모르는 서양 철학




26:13NOW PLAYING
[창작과비평 특별좌담4] 동학에서 촛불까지, 대전환의 근원을 찾아서 - 백낙청 박맹수 도올김용옥 - 다시 동학을 찾아 오늘의 길을 묻다 4편


“환경·만물 사랑 지구종교가 절실히 필요한 때”… ‘희망의 신학’ 몰트만 에큐메니컬 리뷰에 기고-국민일보

“환경·만물 사랑 지구종교가 절실히 필요한 때”… ‘희망의 신학’ 몰트만 에큐메니컬 리뷰에 기고-국민일보

“환경·만물 사랑 지구종교가 절실히 필요한 때”… ‘희망의 신학’ 몰트만 에큐메니컬 리뷰에 기고
입력 : 2011-04-06 17:43


“환경·만물 사랑 지구종교가 절실히 필요한 때”… ‘희망의 신학’ 몰트만 에큐메니컬 리뷰에 기고 기사의 사진


온난화와 해수면 상승, 사막화 등 지구의 환경 위기가 가속화되고 있는 가운데 ‘세계종교(world religion)가 아닌 지구종교(earth religion)가 필요하다’는 주장이 제기됐다. ‘희망의 신학’으로 유명한 위르겐 몰트만(85·사진) 독일 튀빙겐대(조직신학) 명예교수가 세계교회협의회(WCC)의 계간지 ‘에큐메니컬 리뷰’ 최신호에 기고한 글에서다.

몰트만은 ‘공공의 지구종교: 생태적 관점에서 본 세계종교’ 제목의 기고문에서 세계화 이전의 불교·이슬람교·기독교 등 주요 종교를 세계종교로 명명했다. 세계종교는 지나치게 초월성에 치중함으로써 세계를 일시적·현세적·허무적인 것으로 봤고, 이것은 결국 지구를 잠시 머물다 가는 곳으로 여기게 됐으며, 여기서 오늘날의 생태계 위기가 시작됐다는 것이다.

몰트만은 세계종교의 이 같은 한계를 지적하면서 지구촌의 글로벌화를 함께 거론했다. 그는 “모든 생명의 원천인 지구를 훼손하면서 인간 경제를 글로벌화하는 일을 사람들은 진보라고 부른다”며 “하지만 인류가 진보의 사다리를 타고 올라갈수록 지구의 다른 생명을 끌어내리고 위협한다”고 지적했다. 매년 수천 종의 생명체 멸종, 지구촌 온난화, 해수면 상승, 사막화 등이 단적인 증거라는 것이다.

따라서 경제 또한 세계경제에서 지구경제로 패러다임을 바꿔야 한다는 게 몰트만의 주장이다. 경제가 지구 환경을 생각할 때 결국 재생 가능한 에너지 개발과 재활용 산업을 확산시키게 되고, 이것은 인류와 자연의 관계 역시 파괴에서 상호 존중으로 재설정해 질적인 성장을 가져올 거라는 설명이다.

지구종교의 좋은 모델로 몰트만은 구약성경의 안식년 제도를 꼽았다. 7년마다 농지를 쉬도록 한 이 하나님의 제도는 결국 토지를 비옥하게 해 자연과 사람을 함께 살게 했다는 것이다. 몰트만은 “만약 인류가 안식년의 취지를 살리지 못한다면 결국 사막은 확대되고, 기근은 더 자주 발생해 종말을 맞을 수밖에 없을 것”이라며 “지구가 존재하지 않으면 세계종교도 존재할 수 없는 만큼 생태계의 관점에서 세계종교를 성찰하는 일은 시급하고도 심각한 일”이라고 밝혔다.

그는 또 세계종교가 지구종교가 되는 것은 주님의 기도(주기도문)를 이루는 일이기도 하다고 덧붙였다. 몰트만은 “내 꿈은 세계종교가 하늘에서 땅으로 내려와 하늘의 기쁨을 땅의 기쁨으로 만들고, 하늘의 생명수를 이 땅 가운데 적시는 것”이라며 “그것이 이 땅에 하나님의 나라가 이루기를 기도하셨던 주님의 기도를 이루는 일”이라고 강조했다.

김성원 기자 kerneli@kmib.co.kr

[출처] - 국민일보
[원본링크] - http://news.kmib.co.kr/article/view.asp?arcid=0004827105&code=23111111&fbclid=IwAR0UlvnfPkS4-7GrdVcXPXaNopdGGeTxq_0b9OGOsHrhCi7yVGm_F0SKs1I

The Roots of Buddhist Romanticism | Purity of Heart cf Huxley Perennialism

The Roots of Buddhist Romanticism | Purity of Heart   cf Huxley Perennialism

The Roots of Buddhist Romanticism

Many Westerners, when new to Buddhism, are struck by the uncanny familiarity of what seem to be its central concepts: interconnectedness, wholeness, ego-transcendence. But what they may not realize is that the concepts sound familiar because they are familiar. To a large extent, they come not from the Buddha’s teachings but from the Dharma gate of Western psychology, through which the Buddha’s words have been filtered. They draw less from the root sources of the Dharma than from their own hidden roots in Western culture: the thought of the German Romantics.

The German Romantics may be dead and almost forgotten, but their ideas are still very much alive. Their thought has survived because they were the first to tackle the problem of how it feels to grow up in a modern society. Their analysis of the problem, together with their proposed solution, still rings true.

Modern society, they saw, is dehumanizing in that it denies human beings their wholeness. The specialization of labor leads to feelings of fragmentation and isolation; the bureaucratic state, to feelings of regimentation and constriction. The only cure for these feelings, the Romantics proposed, is the creative artistic act. This act integrates the divided self and dissolves its boundaries in an enlarged sense of identity and interconnectedness with other human beings and nature at large. Human beings are most fully human when free to create spontaneously from the heart. The heart’s creations are what allow people to connect. Although many Romantics regarded religious institutions and doctrines as dehumanizing, some of them turned to religious experience—a direct feeling of oneness with the whole of nature—as a primary source for re-humanization.

When psychology and psychotherapy developed as disciplines in the West, they absorbed many of the Romantics’ ideas and broadcast them into the culture at large. As a result, concepts such as integration of the personality, self-fulfillment, and interconnectedness, together with the healing powers of wholeness, spontaneity, playfulness, and fluidity have long been part of the air we breathe. So has the idea that religion is a primarily a quest for a feeling-experience, and religious doctrines are a creative response to that experience.

In addition to influencing psychology, these conceptions inspired liberal Christianity and reform Judaism, which proposed that traditional doctrines had to be creatively recast to speak to each new generation in order to keep religious experience vital and alive. So it was only natural that when the Dharma came west, people interpreted it in line with these conceptions as well. Asian teachers—many of whom had absorbed Romantic ideas through Westernized education before coming here—found they could connect with Western audiences by stressing themes of spontaneity and fluidity in opposition to the “bureaucracy of the ego.” Western students discovered that they could relate to the doctrine of dependent co-arising when it was interpreted as a variation on interconnectedness; and they could embrace the doctrine of not-self as a denial of the separate self in favor of a larger, more encompassing identity with the entire cosmos.

In fact, the Romantic view of religious life has shaped more than just isolated Dharma teachings. It colors the Western view of the purpose of Dharma practice as a whole. Western teachers from all traditions maintain that the aim of Buddhist practice is to gain the creative fluidity that overcomes dualities. As one author has put it, the Buddha taught that “dissolving the barriers that we erect between ourselves and the world is the best use of our human lives ….[Egolessness] manifests as inquisitiveness, as adaptability, as humor, as playfulness… our capacity to relax with not knowing.” Or as another has said, “When our identity expands to include everything, we find a peace with the dance of the world.” Adds a third: “Our job for the rest of our life is to open up into that immensity and to express it.”

Just as the Chinese had Taoism as their Dharma gate—the home-grown tradition providing concepts that helped them understand the Dharma—we in the West have Romanticism as ours. The Chinese experience with Dharma gates, though, contains an important lesson that is often overlooked. After three centuries of interest in Buddhist teachings, they began to realize that Buddhism and Taoism were asking different questions. As they rooted out these differences, they started using Buddhist ideas to question their Taoist presuppositions. This was how Buddhism, instead of turning into a drop in the Taoist sea, was able to inject something genuinely new into Chinese culture. The question here in the West is whether we will learn from the Chinese example and start using Buddhist ideas to question our Dharma gate, to see exactly how far the similarities between the gate and the actual Dharma go. If we don’t, we run the danger of mistaking the gate for the Dharma itself, and of never going through it to the other side.

Taken broadly, Romanticism and the Dharma view spiritual life in a similar light. Both regard religion as a product of human activity, rather than divine intervention. Both regard the essence of religion as experiential and pragmatic; and its role as therapeutic, aimed at curing the diseases of the human mind. But if you examine the historical roots of both traditions, you find that they disagree sharply not only on the nature of religious experience, but also on the nature of the mental diseases it can treat and on the nature of what it means to be cured.

These differences aren’t just historical curiosities. They shape the presuppositions that meditators bring to the practice. Even when fully present, the mind carries along its past presuppositions, using them to judge which experiences—if any—should be valued. This is one of the implications of the Buddhist doctrine on karma. As long as these presuppositions remain unexamined, they hold an unknown power. So to break that power, we need to examine the roots of the Buddhist Romanticism—the Dharma as seen through the Romantic gate. And for the examination to jibe with Buddhist ideas of causality, we have to look for those roots in two directions: into the past for the origin of Romantic ideas, and into the present for the conditions that keep Romantic ideas attractive in the here and now.


The Romantics took their original inspiration from an unexpected source: Kant, the wizened old professor whose daily walks were so punctual that his neighbors could set their clocks by him. In his Critique of Judgment he taught that aesthetic creation and feeling were the highest activities of the human mind, in that they alone could heal the dichotomies of human experience. Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805), perhaps the most influential Romantic philosopher, elaborated on this thesis with his notion of the aesthetic “play drive” as the ultimate expression of human freedom, beyond both the compulsions of animal existence and the laws of reason, bringing both into integration. Man, he said, “is fully a human being only when he plays.”

In Schiller’s eyes, this play drive not only integrated the self, but also helped dissolve one’s separation from other human beings and the natural environment as a whole. A person with the internal freedom needed for self-integration would instinctively want others to experience the same freedom as well. This connection explains the Romantic political program of offering help and sympathy for the oppressed of all nations in overthrowing their oppressors. The value of internal unity, in their eyes, was proven by its ability to create bonds of unity in the world of social and political action.

Schiller saw the process of integration as unending: perfect unity could never be achieved. A meaningful life was one continually engaged in the process of integration. The path was the goal.

It was also totally unpatterned and unconstrained. Given the free nature of the play drive, each person’s path to integration was individual and unique.

Schiller’s colleague, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), applied these ideas to religion, concluding that it, like any other art form, was a human creation, and that its greatest function lay in healing the splits both within the human personality and in human society at large. He defined the essence of religion as “the sensibility and taste for the infinite,” which begins in the receptive mind state where awareness opens to the infinite. This feeling for the infinite is followed by an act of the creative imagination, which articulates that feeling to oneself and others. Because these creative acts—and thus all religious doctrines—are a step removed from the reality of the experience, they are constantly open to improvement and change.

A few quotations from his essays, On Religion, will give a sense of Schleiermacher’s thought.

“The individual is not just part of a whole, but an exhibition of it. The mind, like the universe is creative, not just receptive. Whoever has learned to be more than himself knows that he loses little when he loses himself. Rather than align themselves with a belief of personal immortality after death, the truly religious would prefer to strive to annihilate their personality and live in the one and in the all.”

“Where is religion chiefly to be sought? Where the living contact of a human being with the world fashions itself as feeling. Truly religious people are tolerant of different translations of this feeling, even the hesitation of atheism. Not to have the divine immediately present in one’s feelings has always seemed to them more irreligious than such a hesitation. To insist on one particular conception of the divine to be true is far from religion.”

Schiller and Schleiermacher both had a strong influence on Ralph Waldo Emerson, which can easily be seen in the latter’s writings. We’re sometimes told that Emerson was influenced by Eastern religions, but actually his readings in Buddhism and Hinduism simply provided chapter and verse for the lessons he had already learned from the European Romantics.

“Bring the past into the 1000-eyed present and live ever in a new day. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. The essence of genius, of virtue, and of life is what is called Spontaneity or Instinct. Every man knows that to his involuntary perceptions a perfect faith is due.”

“The reason why the world lacks unity is because man is disunited with himself…. We live in succession, in division, in parts, in particles. Meanwhile, within man is the soul of the whole, the wise silence, the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related, the eternal One. And this deep power in which we exist, and whose beatitude is all accessible to us, is not only self-sufficing and perfect in every hour, but the act of seeing and the thing seen, the seer and the spectacle, the subject and the object, are one.”

At present, the Romantics and Transcendentalists are rarely read outside of literature or theology classes. Their ideas have lived on in the general culture largely because they were adopted by the discipline of psychology and translated into a vocabulary that was both more scientific and more accessible to the public at large. One of the most crucial translators was William James, who gave the psychological study of religion its modern form a century ago, in 1902, with the publication of The Varieties of Religious Experience. James’ broad sympathies extended beyond Western culture to include Buddhism and Hinduism, and beyond the “acceptable” religions of his time to include the Mental Culture movement, the 19th century’s version of the New Age. His interest in diversity makes him seem amazingly post-modern.

Still, James was influenced by the intellectual currents alive in his time, which shaped the way he converted his large mass of data into a psychology of religion. Although he spoke as a scientist, the current with the deepest influence on his thought was Romanticism.

He followed the Romantics in saying that the function of religious experience was to heal the sense of “divided self,” creating a more integrated self-identity better able to function in society. However, to be scientific, the psychology of religion must not side for or against any truth claims concerning the content of religious experiences. For instance, many religious experiences produce a strong conviction in the oneness of the cosmos as a whole. Although scientific observers should accept the feeling of oneness as a fact, they shouldn’t take it as proof that the cosmos is indeed one. Instead, they should judge each experience by its effects on the personality. James was not disturbed by the many mutually contradictory truth-claims that religious experiences have produced over the centuries. In his eyes, different temperaments need different truths as medicine to heal their psychological wounds.

Drawing on Methodism to provide two categories for classifying all religious experiences—conversion and sanctification—James gave a Romantic interpretation to both. For the Methodists, these categories applied specifically to the soul’s relationship to God. Conversion was the turning of the soul to God’s will; sanctification, the attunement of the soul to God’s will in all its actions. To apply these categories to other religions, James removed the references to God, leaving a more Romantic definition: conversion unifies the personality; sanctification represents the on-going integration of that unification into daily life.

Also, James followed the Romantics in judging the effects of both types of experiences in this-worldly terms. Conversion experiences are healthy when they foster healthy sanctification: the ability to maintain one’s integrity in the rough and tumble of daily life, acting as a moral and responsible member of human society. In psychological terms, James saw conversion as simply an extreme example of the breakthroughs ordinarily encountered in adolescence. And he agreed with the Romantics that personal integration was a process to be pursued throughout life, rather than a goal to be achieved.

Other writers who took up the psychology of religion after James devised a more scientific vocabulary to analyze their data. Still, they maintained many of the Romantic notions that James had introduced into the field.

For example, in Modern Man in Search of a Soul (1933), Carl Jung agreed that religion’s proper role lay in healing of divisions within the personality, although he saw the same basic split in everyone: the narrow, fearful ego vs. the wiser, more spacious unconscious. Thus he regarded religion as a primitive form of psychotherapy. In fact, he actually lay closer than James to the Romantics in his definition of psychic health. Quoting Schiller’s assertion that human beings are most human when they are at play, Jung saw the cultivation of spontaneity and fluidity both as a means for integrating the divided personality and as an expression of the healthy personality engaged in the unending process of integration, internal and external, throughout life.

Unlike James, Jung saw the integrated personality as lying above the rigid confines of morality. And, although he didn’t use the term, he extolled what Keats called “negative capability”: the ability to deal comfortably with uncertainties and mysteries without trying to impose confining certainties on them. Thus Jung recommended borrowing from religions any teachings that assist the process of integration, while rejecting any teachings that would inhibit the spontaneity of the integrated self.

In Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences (1970), Abraham Maslow, the American “father of transpersonal psychology,” divided religious experiences into the same two categories used by James. But in an attempt to divorce these categories from any particular tradition, he named them after the shape they would assume if graphed over time: peak-experiences and plateau-experiences. These terms have now entered the common vernacular. Peak-experiences are short-lived feelings of oneness and integration that can come, not only in the area of religion, but also in sport, sex, and art. Plateau-experiences exhibit a more stable sense of integration and last much longer.

Maslow had little use for traditional interpretations of peak experiences, regarding them as cultural overlays that obscured the true nature of the experience. Assuming all peak experiences, regardless of cause or context, to be basically the same, he reduced them to their common psychological features, such as feelings of wholeness, dichotomy-transcendence, playfulness, and effortlessness. Thus reduced, he found, they weren’t of lasting value unless they could be transformed into plateau experiences. To this end he saw psychotherapy as necessary for their perfection: integrating them into a regime of counseling and education that would actualize the full potential of the human being—intellectual, physical, social, sexual—in a society where all areas of life are sacred, and plateau-experiences commonplace for all.

These three writers on the psychology of religion, despite their differences, kept Romantic ideas about religion alive in the West by giving them the scientific stamp of approval. Through their influence, these ideas have shaped humanistic psychology and—through humanistic psychology—the expectations many Americans bring to the Dharma.

However, when we compare these expectations with the original principles of the Dharma, we find radical differences. The contrast between them is especially strong around the three most central issues of spiritual life: What is the essence of religious experience? What is the basic illness that religious experience can cure? And what does it mean to be cured?

The nature of religious experience. For humanistic psychology, as for the Romantics, religious experience is a direct feeling, rather than the discovery of objective truths. The essential feeling is a oneness overcoming all inner and outer divisions. These experiences come in two sorts: peak experiences, in which the sense of oneness breaks through divisions and dualities; and plateau experiences, where—through training—the sense of oneness creates as healthy sense of self, informing all of one’s activities in everyday life.

However, the Dharma as expounded in its earliest records places training in oneness and a healthy sense of self prior to the most dramatic religious experiences. A healthy sense of self is fostered through training in generosity and virtue. A sense of oneness—peak or plateau—is attained in mundane levels of concentration (jhana) that constitute the path, rather than the goal of practice. The ultimate religious experience, Awakening, is something else entirely. It is described, not in terms of feeling, but of knowledge: skillful mastery of the principles of causality underlying actions and their results, followed by direct knowledge of the dimension beyond causality where all suffering stops.

The basic spiritual illness. Romantic/humanistic psychology states that the root of suffering is a sense of divided self, which creates not only inner boundaries—between reason and emotion, body and mind, ego and shadow—but also outer ones, separating us from other people and from nature and the cosmos as a whole. The Dharma, however, teaches that the essence of suffering is clinging, and that the most basic form of clinging is self-identification, regardless of whether one’s sense of self is finite or infinite, fluid or static, unitary or not.

The successful spiritual cure. Romantic/humanistic psychology maintains that a total, final cure is unattainable. Instead, the cure is an ongoing process of personal integration. The enlightened person is marked by an enlarged, fluid sense of self, unencumbered by moral rigidity. Guided primarily by what feels right in the context of interconnectedness, one negotiates with ease—like a dancer—the roles and rhythms of life. Having learned the creative answer to the question, “What is my true identity?”, one is freed from the need for certainties about any of life’s other mysteries.

The Dharma, however, teaches that full Awakening achieves a total cure, opening to the unconditioned beyond time and space, at which point the task is done. The awakened person then follows a path “that can’t be traced,” but is incapable of transgressing the basic principles of morality. Such a person realizes that the question, “What is my true identity?” was ill-conceived, and knows from direct experience the total release from time and space that will happen at death.


When these two traditions are compared point-by-point, it’s obvious that—from the perspective of early Buddhism—Romantic/humanistic psychology gives only a partial and limited view of the potentials of spiritual practice. This means that Buddhist Romanticism, in translating the Dharma into Romantic principles, gives only a partial and limited view of what Buddhism has to offer.

Now, for many people, these limitations don’t matter, because they come to Buddhist Romanticism for reasons rooted more in the present than in the past. Modern society is now even more schizoid than anything the Romantics ever knew. It has made us more and more dependent on wider and wider circles of other people, yet keeps most of those dependencies hidden. Our food and clothing come from the store, but how they got there, or who is responsible for ensuring a continual supply, we don’t know. When investigative reporters track down the web of connections from field to final product in our hands, the bare facts read like an exposé. Our sweatshirts, for example, come from Uzbekistani cotton woven in Iran, sewn in South Korea, and stored in Kentucky—an unstable web of interdependencies that involve not a little suffering both for the producers and for those pushed out of the production web by cheaper labor.

Whether or not we know these details, we intuitively sense the fragmentation and uncertainty created by the entire system. Thus many of us feel a need for a sense of wholeness. For those who benefit from the hidden dependencies of modern life, a corollary need is a sense of reassurance that interconnectedness is reliable and benign—or, if not yet benign, that feasible reforms can make it that way. They want to hear that they can safely place their trust in the principle of interconnectedness without fear that it will turn on them or let them down. When Buddhist Romanticism speaks to these needs, it opens the gate to areas of Dharma that can help many people find the solace they’re looking for. In doing so, it augments the work of psychotherapy, which may explain why so many psychotherapists have embraced Dharma practice for their own needs and for their patients, and why some have become Dharma teachers themselves.

However, Buddhist Romanticism also helps close the gate to areas of the Dharma that would challenge people in their hope for an ultimate happiness based on interconnectedness. Traditional Dharma calls for renunciation and sacrifice, on the grounds that all interconnectedness is essentially unstable, and any happiness based on this instability is an invitation to suffering. True happiness has to go beyond interdependence and interconnectedness to the unconditioned. In response, the Romantic argument brands these teachings as dualistic: either inessential to the religious experience or inadequate expressions of it. Thus, it concludes, they can safely be ignored. In this way, the gate closes off radical areas of the Dharma designed to address levels of suffering remaining even when a sense of wholeness has been mastered.

It also closes off two groups of people who would otherwise benefit greatly from Dharma practice.

1) Those who see that interconnectedness won’t end the problem of suffering and are looking for a more radical cure.

2) Those from disillusioned and disadvantaged sectors of society, who have less invested in the continuation of modern interconnectedness and have abandoned hope for meaningful reform or happiness within the system.

For both of these groups, the concepts of Buddhist Romanticism seem Pollyannaish; the cure it offers, too facile. As a Dharma gate, it’s more like a door shut in their faces.

Like so many other products of modern life, the root sources of Buddhist Romanticism have for too long remained hidden. This is why we haven’t recognized it for what it is or realized the price we pay in mistaking the part for the whole. Barring major changes in American society, Buddhist Romanticism is sure to survive. What’s needed is for more windows and doors to throw light onto the radical aspects of the Dharma that Buddhist Romanticism has so far left in the dark.