Can Something Be Divine Independently of a Deity?

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

It's quite unfortunate, because modern Christianity in the last century or so has been hijacked by an anthropomorphized, creationist version of God that came out of fundamentalism and is really a caricature of the God described by classical theism and the more historic understanding of God in the Abrahamic traditions. God as these faiths have long understood him is not a super-human sky daddy. That is more akin to the gods of Greek mythology.

Regarding a close equivalent to Brahman without qualities, allow me to quote from from Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (pg. 25):

The Western Church, which had tended toward a more intellectualized, cataphatic theology, I think has often confused the painting with the object being painted. However, even in the West, theologians like Paul Tillich have emphasized that God is beyond all our categories and conceptualizations.

This is well said, Left Coast. In Hinduism, the concept described by the quote from Lossky is called the path of discrimination in jnana yoga, by which the devotee examines a "thing" (material, ideational, etc.) and declares, "Neti neti." That is, "not this, not this." After discarding all that is not, one arrives at Brahman, "iti iti." That is, "it is, It is!"

 

[SalixIncendium]

It's quite unfortunate, because modern Christianity in the last century or so has been hijacked by an anthropomorphized, creationist version of God that came out of fundamentalism and is really a caricature of the God described by classical theism and the more historic understanding of God in the Abrahamic traditions. God as these faiths have long understood him is not a super-human sky daddy. That is more akin to the gods of Greek mythology.

Regarding a close equivalent to Brahman without qualities, allow me to quote from from Vladimir Lossky's The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (pg. 25):



The Western Church, which had tended toward a more intellectualized, cataphatic theology, I think has often confused the painting with the object being painted. However, even in the West, theologians like Paul Tillich have emphasized that God is beyond all our categories and conceptualizations.

When you made mention of Abrahamic religions, I was thinking more in terms of the Western mainstream religions.

Yes, there are Abrahamic mystic disciplines that conceptualize God as an Ultimate Reality.

 

[Left Coast]

When you made mention of Abrahamic religions, I was thinking more in terms of the Western mainstream religions.

Yes, there are Abrahamic mystic disciplines that conceptualize God as an Ultimate Reality.

I would argue that this understanding actually is the mainstream Western theistic view, it's just not well explained, or perhaps not well understood (even by some theists themselves, who have a more simplistic, fundamentalist view).

For example, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 213:

The revelation of the ineffable name "I AM WHO AM" contains then the truth that God alone IS. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and following it the Church's Tradition, understood the divine name in this sense: God is the fullness of Being and of every perfection, without origin and without end. All creatures receive all that they are and have from him; but he alone is his very being, and he is of himself everything that he is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's quite unfortunate, because modern Christianity in the last century or so has been hijacked by an anthropomorphized, creationist version of God that came out of fundamentalism and is really a caricature of the God described by classical theism and the more historic understanding of God in the Abrahamic traditions. God as these faiths have long understood him is not a super-human sky daddy. That is more akin to the gods of Greek mythology.

Indeed. The idea of God as a man in the sky with a white beard is entirely an invention of 20th century fundamentalists.

Oh... wait:

17th Century:

16th Century:

15th Century:

14th Century:

 

[Left Coast]

Indeed. The idea of God as a man in the sky with a white beard is entirely an invention of 20th century fundamentalists.

Oh... wait:

17th Century:

16th Century:

15th Century:

14th Century:

And before that, the absence of images of God the Father is because of a taboo around depictions of God, not because they didn't think he looked like a human man.

Very early depictions of God the Father as a human figure mostly don't survive because of the iconoclasts of the ~8th century.

You're aware those images are symbols, right? The Christian God is considered immaterial. Thus physical depictions of him in art are non-literal. Or do you think early Christians actually believed God (the Father) had a physical body?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're aware those images are symbols, right? The Christian God is considered immaterial.

The idea of an "immaterial" God is largely a modern invention.

Traditionally, only the Holy Spirit was seen as immaterial. God the Father and God the Son were both seen as having substantial forms.

Thus physical depictions of him in art are non-literal. Or do you think early Christians actually believed God (the Father) had a physical body?

Google the First Council of Nicea. One of the main debates it dealt with was the relationship between the essence and substance of God the Son and God the Father. While there were a range of views represented, it wasn't a matter of controversy that God the Father did have an essence and a substance.

Edit: a literalist interpretation of the Bible was very common throughout the history of Christianity. You can see this assumption in, for instance, the various cosmologies depicting Earth as having a series of concentric solid domes in the sky, or in Usher's chronology. It's only in recent times, when a literalist interpretation seems absurd in a scientifically-literate framework, that non-literalist adaptations have really arisen. Until then, it's been basically a given that God, angels, Heaven, etc., are just as real and substantial as physical objects we interact with every day.

 

[Left Coast]

The idea of an "immaterial" God is largely a modern invention.

Do you have any evidence for this?

Traditionally, only the Holy Spirit was seen as immaterial. God the Father and God the Son were both seen as having substantial forms.

Again, do you have any evidence for this?

Google the First Council of Nicea. One of the main debates it dealt with was the relationship between the essence and substance of God the Son and God the Father. While there were a range of views represented, it wasn't a matter of controversy that God the Father did have an essence and a substance.

I would do some more Googling if I were you. The term "substance," or ousios in Greek, does not denote physicality as applied to God. I'll be curious if you can find any theologian or historian of Christianity who would agree that the bishops at the 1st Nicene Council thought referring to Jesus as homoousios with the Father meant the Father had a physical body. Let me know what you find.

Edit: a literalist interpretation of the Bible was very common throughout the history of Christianity. You can see this assumption in, for instance, the various cosmologies depicting Earth as having a series of concentric solid domes in the sky, or in Usher's chronology. It's only in recent times, when a literalist interpretation seems absurd in a scientifically-literate framework, that non-literalist adaptations have really arisen. Until then, it's been basically a given that God, angels, Heaven, etc., are just as real and substantial as physical objects we interact with every day.

While it's true that some aspects of Scripture were taken literally that largely aren't anymore, the fact that people thought God was definitely real did not mean they thought he had a physical body (aside from the Incarnation of Jesus, which was basically the exception that proved the rule). They did not have a modern mindset in which only physical, tangible things are considered "real."

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. I perceive deities to be an appearance of Brahman, but Brahman is not intrinsic to deity. Your thoughts?

Sankara solved the problem by accepting deities in 'Vyavaharika', but not in 'Paramarthika'. So many things seem to be happening in 'Vyavaharika'.

"Can Something Be Not Divine?"

"Ekam eva adviteeyam" (One alone without a second).

'Containers', said @Sw Vandana Jyothi.

@Left Coast , Hinduism discarded this he/she business, by terming Brahman as 'It'.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

In another discussion, there was a comparison made between divine law and natural law. In a response, someone mentioned that they thought natural law might exist independent of deities.

I was going to engage in a discussion about the difference between divine and deities, but then looked at the dictionary definition of 'divine' and, to my dismay, found this.

As one that doesn't identify as a theist, I perceive Brahman to be divine, and, as I see it, Brahman is no deity. So my answer to the question in the title would be a resounding "yes," as I perceive deities to be an appearance of Brahman, but Brahman is not intrinsic to deity.

Your thoughts?

Yes but with different semantic distinctions between traditions.

 

[Gandalf]

This goes in light with a good chunk of early Shi'ite theology regarding the 12 imams, divinity is just the attribute of being divine or a deity but in the case of Shi'ite creed the imams are just given divine insight into the religious affairs of the ummah. Divine stewardship essentially although it can go beyond this especially in earlier sects.

 

[HonestJoe]

As one that doesn't identify as a theist, I perceive Brahman to be divine, and, as I see it, Brahman is no deity. So my answer to the question in the title would be a resounding "yes," as I perceive deities to be an appearance of Brahman, but Brahman is not intrinsic to deity.

I think the definition of the word divine (and the logic behind it) is fairly clear - divine implicitly relates to a deity.

I don't think you position can only be resolved by changing the definitions of the words though. If you don't consider Brahman to be a deity, why would you want to specifically define them as divine? You must mean something different to the standard definition so maybe you need a different word (or set of words) to describe what you mean. Or maybe you shouldn't be seeing calling Brahman a deity problematic (something you appear to be moving towards in a later post).

Ultimately these English words are generic terms. Many of them may well have developed in a monotheistic/Christian environment and be strongly influenced by that but their intent and meanings have developed to naturally cover a much wider field and, with appropriate context, can be applied to pretty much any set of beliefs or ideas and this kind of concept.

 

[Ponder This]

In another discussion, there was a comparison made between divine law and natural law. In a response, someone mentioned that they thought natural law might exist independent of deities.

I was going to engage in a discussion about the difference between divine and deities, but then looked at the dictionary definition of 'divine' and, to my dismay, found this.

As one that doesn't identify as a theist, I perceive Brahman to be divine, and, as I see it, Brahman is no deity. So my answer to the question in the title would be a resounding "yes," as I perceive deities to be an appearance of Brahman, but Brahman is not intrinsic to deity.

Your thoughts?

There was a discussion in ancient Greece as to whether or not the gods were gods because they had qualities that made them so or whether the qualities came from the gods.
So it's very much like this question of whether or not the gods happen to be divine or the divine comes from the gods.

If the gods aren't divine, then they aren't gods!
On the other hand, if something is not a god, it can still be divine! (for example angels)
The Brahman problem appears to be that the examples we think of being divine that are not deities are all things that would come from deities or be reflections of deities, but Brahman is being considered as something which deities may or may not be manifestations or representations or personifications of and Brahman not being itself from a deity or a reflection of a deity. Perhaps the "deities" that are appearances of Brahman are more aptly described as "divinities"?

However, getting back tot he question of divine law vs natural law... (I would insert also the question of human law). The suggestion of these two being vs each other suggests that they are opposed to each other. Perhaps gods are not natural or perhaps nature is not divine... and what do we say about Brahman? I suggest that divine law and natural law are merely contrasted (not opposed) and that the use of the word 'natural' or 'divine' merely draws attention to an important characteristic of those laws. I also suggest that divine laws are divined from higher intuition whereas natural laws are discovered through natural processes (and human laws are just laws made by people).

 

[Heyo]

In another discussion, there was a comparison made between divine law and natural law. In a response, someone mentioned that they thought natural law might exist independent of deities.

I was going to engage in a discussion about the difference between divine and deities, but then looked at the dictionary definition of 'divine' and, to my dismay, found this.

As one that doesn't identify as a theist, I perceive Brahman to be divine, and, as I see it, Brahman is no deity. So my answer to the question in the title would be a resounding "yes," as I perceive deities to be an appearance of Brahman, but Brahman is not intrinsic to deity.

Your thoughts?

If you had asked if someone could be divine instead of something, the answer would have been easy:

Divine (performer) - Wikipedia