Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Theurgy - Kriya Tantra - Orthodox Liturgy

Expand Messages
  • chronicneoplatonic
    Hesychasm reminds me of tantra from another perspective than has already been mentioned, viz., the concentration on centres in the body, wherein as far as I
    Message 1 of 63 , Jul 4, 2010
      Hesychasm reminds me of tantra from another perspective than has already been mentioned, viz., the concentration on centres in the body, wherein as far as I can tell it is unique in the Christian tradition. The Hesychasts were the original 'navel-gazers'. i gather that scholars nowadays more or less agree that there is some (undocumentable) connection with the Sufi practice of dhikr which was of course widespread throughout Asia Minor long before the time Hesychasm arose in Athos and other monasteries. In dhikr, as still practiced in various orders, names of Allah, divine attributes, and other words of power are circulated through different conceptual points in the body (different orders locate and enumerate these differently), as is the Jesus Prayer in hesychast prazis.And dhikr has in turn been linked with central asian meditative techniques involving subtle centres (of energy? consciousness? both? neither?) located at definite points in the body (chakras and their ilk); the Chisti and Naqshbandi orders have their origins in modern day India and Uzbebkistan, respectively, and concentrate especially on theories revolving arounf the laTa'if, subtle centres of consciousness located in the body. it is easy to see how Sufis interested in inner knowledge would have picked up on Buddhist, yogic, and tantric techniques from all over the place.

      So alongside this interesting debate about a ground for postulating a commonality in mystical techniques across cultures, not only the nature of humans but their specifically bodily nature should be considered, it seems to me.


      --- In neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com, Thomas Mether <t_mether@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hello Ted,
      > Do you have the publishing info for this? Thanks, Thomas
      >
      > --- On Fri, 7/2/10, Ted Hand <ted.hand@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > From: Ted Hand <ted.hand@...>
      > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Theurgy - Kriya Tantra - Orthodox Liturgy
      > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Friday, July 2, 2010, 12:02 AM
      >
      >
      >  
      >
      >
      >
      > there's an article about "Buddhist Theurgy" in "Seeing with Different Eyes"
      > a recent collection of essays on divination
      >
      > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Thomas Mether <t_mether@...> wrote:
      >
      > >
      > >
      > > Another question.
      > >
      > > I'm reading an interesting manuscript claiming, basically, that theurgy,
      > > Tantric Buddhist kriya yoga (the ritualistic tantra), and the Orthodox
      > > Liturgy (despite theological differences -- basically ignoring them --
      > > another question, can we? Are similar practices formatively the same in
      > > effect in different traditions?) are the same spiritual practice.
      > >
      > > Input? Ideas? Recommendations? Books? Articles? Opinions?
      > >
      > > Thanks, Thomas
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Ted Hand
      Sounds interesting, thanks. Have you read Leen Spruit s book Species Intelligibilis? He has a Pico chpater. ... [Non-text portions of this message have been
      Message 63 of 63 , Aug 8 8:04 PM
        Sounds interesting, thanks. Have you read Leen Spruit's book Species
        Intelligibilis? He has a Pico chpater.

        On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Thomas Mether <t_mether@...> wrote:

        >
        >
        > Ted,
        > I need to dig out some old notes. Some of my professors were actually
        > students of Cassirer and they all said he would do a close reading of a
        > text, expound on its sources, and explain the connections between the two.
        >
        > That said, there is one disparaging remark about Kant made by Cassirer. It
        > went along the lines of "not assembly-line sausage factory processing still
        > sausage processing" for Kant's cognitive theories. This was in reference to
        > the manifold is not chaotic and meaningless but overly and inexhaustively
        > meaningful -- blindingly so to intuition. Discourse, or symbolizing,
        > selectively articulates the super-concentrated intelligibility that is
        > blinding. So. there is not one symbolic form.
        >
        > In terms of Pico, they referred to his close reading of Pico dealing with
        > intelligible species. There is not a hierarchical process from senses to
        > intellect but an immediately intelligible species. How he would play with it
        > is if this immediately intelligble species was so concentrated in its
        > compacted richness - it had infinite discursive symbolizing possibilities.
        >
        > He claims that the dualism between the internal self-articulation of
        > knowledge as expressive act and an external world is false because the
        > (leibnitzian monad is self-enclosed but not cut-off -- the lifeworld is the
        > embodiment of monad).
        >
        > Intelligible species in Pico, on Cassirer's close reading reported by my
        > professors, is immediate but later articulations are selective. In the
        > process, I'm told, Cassirer was agreeing with Pico against Thomas Aquinas.
        >
        > Again, I'll dig up notes but does this make sense? Texts Cassirer used to
        > vis a vis Pico were Alexander of Aphrodisias and Simplicus De Anima, Pico's
        > Heptapus and Secundum Thomam and Secundum Alpharabium Conclusions. Hope that
        > helps for now.
        >
        > --- On Sun, 8/8/10, Ted Hand <ted.hand@... <ted.hand%40gmail.com>>
        > wrote:
        >
        > From: Ted Hand <ted.hand@... <ted.hand%40gmail.com>>
        >
        > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Query - Odd - Cassirer and Neoplatonism
        > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com>
        > Date: Sunday, August 8, 2010, 2:16 PM
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Thomas,
        > thanks for that. I'm beginning to suspect that Cassirer learned more from
        > Pico than
        > I had guessed from reading the historiographical debunkers. Do you know
        > much
        >
        > about his take on Pico's psychology (which depends on an original and
        > difficult
        > take on metaphysics and ontology)?
        >
        > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Thomas Mether <t_mether@...<t_mether%40yahoo.com>>
        > wrote:
        >
        > >
        > >
        > > Bob,
        > > The recently published 4th volume of Cassirer's Philosophy of Symbolic
        > > Forms, Bob, is the Metaphysics of Symbolic Forms. Reality is Semiosis
        > (which
        > > is what my paper and now article focussed on in Cassirer and Peirce) by
        > > which life (Cassirer re-works Lebensphilosophie) articulates itself into
        > > more free and progressively self-determining form. Spirit through human
        > > symbolizing not only articulates itself but its dynamically evolving
        > "ideas"
        > > (symbols). Cassirer's metaphysics says Being is not the object there
        > before
        > > human symbolizing begins and to which it must correspond but is that
        > being
        > > articulated in the symbolizing as the internal self-definition of Being.
        > > Symbolic forms as both "intuitive" and "expressive" are the media of
        > > Spirit's expressive self-knowledge as free self-expression. Take a
        > > mathematical analogy: there are no platonic forms to start with -- just
        > free
        > > creations of the human spirit to begin with but such constructive
        > > imaginative creations
        > > begin to develop a logic on their own. Symbolizing is a Bilddungsroman.
        > >
        > > --- On Sun, 8/8/10, Robert Wallace <bob@...<bob%40robertmwallace.com>
        > <bob%40robertmwallace.com>>
        > > wrote:
        > >
        > > From: Robert Wallace <bob@... <bob%40robertmwallace.com><bob%
        > 40robertmwallace.com>>
        >
        > > Subject: Re: [neoplatonism] Query - Odd - Cassirer and Neoplatonism
        > > To: neoplatonism@yahoogroups.com <neoplatonism%40yahoogroups.com><neoplatonism%
        > 40yahoogroups.com>
        >
        > > Date: Sunday, August 8, 2010, 1:24 PM
        > >
        > >
        > > Dear all,
        > >
        > > I don't know all of Cassirer's work, nor all the neo-Kantians, but I
        > > have the impression that they all lack an understanding of how the
        > > Platonic "ascent" creates a fuller reality. The soul is more real _as
        > > itself_ than the body, because it's more self-determining than the
        > > body. This is the idea that seems to be shared by the Platonic
        > > tradition in the widest sense, including Aristotle, Plotinus and
        > > Hegel. Lacking this idea, Natorp (Cassirer's teacher) thought of Plato
        > > as a thinker of mathematics and the synthetic a priori--which is
        > > certainly part of what Plato is about, but not, if I'm right, the
        > > central thing that he's about. (Please correct me if I'm
        > > oversimplifying Natorp.) Cassirer seems to have thought of Plato in
        > > the same way as Natorp, while broadening the notion of the a priori to
        > > include language, mythology, and so forth. He was not prepared to
        > > engage in metaphysics, as such.
        > >
        > > Lacking the central Platonic idea that I mentioned, Cassirer could
        > > hardly be a Neoplatonist, though his thinking might well overlap with
        > > Neoplatonism in other, less central ways.
        > >
        > > Best, Bob W.
        > >
        > > On Aug 7, 2010, at 6:52 PM, Ted Hand wrote:
        > >
        > > > I haven't done much work with Cassirer as a philosopher, but I can
        > > > recommend
        > > > some
        > > > historiographical studies that criticize his interpretation of Pico
        > > > della
        > > > Mirandola.
        > > >
        > > > see Craven, Pico della Mirandola: Symbol of his Age
        > > > and Copenhaver "De-Kanting Pico's Oration" (p. 305-308 in this)
        > > >
        > >
        > http://www.cmrs.ucla.edu/brian/research/finished_research/finished_articles/i24_dignity.pdf
        > > >
        > > > Copenhaver criticizes Cassirer for his mistaken view that Pico was a
        > > > "pre-Kantian"
        > > > It seems to me as though Cassirer is haunted by Renaissance
        > > > Neoplatonism but
        > > > doesn't necessarily fully understand it. Did any of the post-
        > > > idealists?
        > > >
        > > > On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Thomas Mether <t_mether@...<t_mether%40yahoo.com>
        > <t_mether%40yahoo.com>>
        >
        > >
        > > > wrote:
        > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > List,
        > > > >
        > > > > Since I have time to write (no longer an administrator over clinical
        > > > > trials) besides teach, I have a piece being revised for re-
        > > > submission on
        > > > > Cassirer and Peirce. In that piece, I argue that Cassirer is
        > > > correct in
        > > > > telling Heidegger at Davos he is not a neo-Kantian; Cassirer is
        > > > closer to
        > > > > being some kind of objective idealist.
        > > > >
        > > > > Okay here is the query: Cassirer is not a German idealist (while
        > > > > sympathetic to Hegel and more so to Schelling) because "necessity"
        > > > is a
        > > > > creative by-product of human imaginative freedom postulating some
        > > > rules from
        > > > > which, in terms of coherence, other things must follow. Looking at
        > > > his
        > > > > comments on Neoplatonism, I am now wondering about a second piece
        > > > - is
        > > > > Cassirer a neoplatonist?
        > > > >
        > > > > Comments or references? I have already started a literature search
        > > > and
        > > > > review.
        > > > >
        > > > > Thanks,
        > > > >
        > > > > Thomas Mether
        > > > >
        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > > Robert Wallace
        > > website: www.robertmwallace.com (The God Within Us)
        > > email: bob@... <bob%40robertmwallace.com> <bob%
        > 40robertmwallace.com>
        >
        > > phone: 414-617-3914
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > > ------------------------------------
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.