Freethought & Rationalism Archive

figuer · 08-13-2007, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aupmanyav

Brahman is all, inside as well as outside (which are same) and consists of atoms, strings, quantas, energy, or what ever science finds out, because there is nothing other than that. Am I an immanentist?

I think you definitely are. What can be more immanentist than perceiving inside and outside as the same??

wordy · 08-13-2007, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Any of various religious theories postulating that a deity, mind, or spirit
is immanent in the world and in the individual.

So they meant something else but described it that way.

Ok I am very bad at english so maybe me not having formal training in english grammar is excused getting it wrong.

But as I read it. it actually say that

Quote:

That a deity, mind, or spirit is immanent in the world and in the individual.

The text says the world is a physical world but that the deity is to be found in the material and humans being material allow the deity to be found within the individual human.

Is not that the grammatical meaning of the txt?

wordy · 08-13-2007, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aupmanyav

Brahman is all, inside as well as outside (which are same) and consists of atoms, strings, quantas, energy, or what ever science finds out, because there is nothing other than that. Am I an immanentist?

But is that not your own very individual interpretation of what hinduism is.

And I guess you say that Hinduism allow individual interpretations but would the Priests in the Hindu Temple start preaching it. Would ISCON teach it.

As I remember they say the opposite. There is no matter there is only mind. All is mind. Matter is illusion.

wordy · 08-13-2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

Quote:

Originally Posted by aupmanyav

Brahman is all, inside as well as outside (which are same) and consists of atoms, strings, quantas, energy, or what ever science finds out, because there is nothing other than that. Am I an immanentist?

I think you definitely are. What can be more immanentist than perceiving inside and outside as the same??

But the inside makes an interpretation of both outside and the little it know about the inside. So it isn't the same.

figuer · 08-13-2007, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

Fiquer are you telling me your into Hinduism? ISCON or similar?

Not at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

Are you sure there is no immanentism that could be fully materialistic physicalist?

Of course there is. That is what immanent is in its secular definition: Something existing in the realm of the material universe and/or human consciousness.

Immanentism in religious discourse would mean that a difference between the material and the spiritual does not really exists. They would be simply different perceptions of the same reality. That is the type of Hinduism (phycicalist), that Aupmanyav (I interpret), adheres to.

wordy · 08-13-2007, 10:36 AM

Here a link to philosophy
http://www.radicalacademy.com/adiphilmodern.htm#intro

Quote:

ntroduction: Immanentism in Modern Philosophy

...
Modern philosophy, essentially immanentist, does not find its justification in pure speculation, but in scientific and empirical motives, and in the struggle against Scholasticism and against the authority of the Church. As a consequence, it became essentially atheistic.

Thanks Fiquer. Yes he has a very different inerpretation. sure there are old indian texts supporting his views most likely but I live in Sweden. Yes I have had indian friends since 1965 so it is not about that but I'm a Westerner. I don't support Eastern Philosophy.

But I do appreciate the thoughtful views he has given in the Buddhist threads but did they listen to him? I think it is better to cut the connotation to East from scratch. It only confuse those getting interested.

figuer · 08-13-2007, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

But the inside makes an interpretation of both outside and the little it know about the inside. So it isn't the same.

Inside/outside are referring here to the Universe, not human consciousness vs. external reality (although it equally applies since consciousness is within (immanent), the external reality).

What this means is that there are different points of view, and these lead to different perceptions/understandings of things, but these are parts of a whole, and do not transcend the whole.

wordy · 08-13-2007, 10:48 AM

ok so again I ask you. Is this part of something you have worked out more detailed?

Have you published your thoughts somewhere? Could you link to it and or make quotes?

figuer · 08-13-2007, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

... but I'm a Westerner. I don't support Eastern Philosophy..... I think it is better to cut the connotation to East from scratch. It only confuse those getting interested.

I am a Westerner also, and I hold the same view. I respect and find stimulus in other traditions, but I am not interested in attaching myself to other cultural systems apart from the Eurocentric.

figuer · 08-13-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

Is this part of something you have worked out more detailed? Have you published your thoughts somewhere? Could you link to it and or make quotes?

0 x 3 = No; I suppose however that someday I will organise my thoughts concerning these things. Someday 'could' be not far away...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-13-2007, 10:48 AM	#28
wordy Contributor Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sweden, Europe Posts: 12,091	ok so again I ask you. Is this part of something you have worked out more detailed? Have you published your thoughts somewhere? Could you link to it and or make quotes?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.