Spirituality
09 Mar 10
09 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI don’t know how different Tillich thought his notion is (been a long time since I read him), though a priest friend of mine thought that Tillich was far too non-dualistic.
Can somebody explain exactly what Tillich means with this phrase? What 'is' this ground of all being?
Tillich’s “pre-trinitarian” formula was God as ground of being, power of being, and “being-itself” (I would say, "manifestation of being"; but I might be reading into him from my own non-dualism). That certainly sounds non-dualist; at least it does not seem to fit the dualist-theist conception of God. Perhaps Tillich was more of a panentheist.
The conventional theistic conception of God is dualist: God is “wholly other” than the created universe which—rather than being any kind of expression/manifestation of God—was created out of nothing. One of the problems (for me) is that this “nothing” seems generally to be conceived as a “queer kind of something” [G.E. Moore], a “nothingness” that is somehow separate from “somethingness”; and, prior to creation, God would have been the only “somethingness” there was.
Some thoroughly non-dualist traditions nevertheless use theistic language symbolically; e.g., Kashmiri Shavism, whose Shiva-Shakti-Spanda formulation is pretty close to Tillich’s “pre-trinitarian” formula—except that they are very clear about their non-dualism: “Nothing there is that is not Shiva”.
Hope that helps; it’s not a clear answer, but maybe lays out the ground (pun intended) a bit…
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by rwingettThe traditional, theistic conception of God includes the attribute --- "ground of all being" --- so I don't think Tillich's conception of God differs in that respect.
Alright, perhaps I need to clarify what I'm asking a little more. Any fool can see that 'god' is supposedly the ground of all being, but what does that mean, exactly? How is Tillich's conception of god as the 'ground of all being' different from the traditional, theistic conception of god?
09 Mar 10
Originally posted by epiphinehasIs that your opinion or Tillich's? It is my understanding that Tillich's conception of god is quite different from the traditional theistic one.
The traditional, theistic conception of God includes the attribute --- "ground of all being" --- so I don't think Tillich's conception of God differs in that respect.
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by vistesdThe reason I ask is that I'm reading another book by Bishop Spong, Why Christianity Must Change Or Die, and he references Tillich and the 'ground of all being'. That's a nifty phrase and all, but how does one relate to it? You've used phrases like 'ground of being', 'power of being', 'being-itself', and 'manifestation of being', but how does one relate to those? What do they mean to me? How does saying that god is the ground of all being make any practical difference in my life? At what point does it just become an exercise in retaining the 'god' language while dropping all the 'god' content? If it translates into a sort of pantheism, then what's the point, really? If it's a type of panentheism, as you've said, then what exactly is this extra part that distinguishes it from pantheism?
I don’t know how different Tillich thought his notion is (been a long time since I read him), though a priest friend of mine thought that Tillich was far too non-dualistic.
Tillich’s “pre-trinitarian” formula was God as ground of being, power of being, and “being-itself” (I would say, "manifestation of being"; but I might be reading into him f ...[text shortened]... Hope that helps; it’s not a clear answer, but maybe lays out the ground (pun intended) a bit…
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by epiphinehasI took Tillich to 'wander' to the point of distinguishing how God cannot be objectified in the sense that (pardon the expression) we are looking down on Him as a subject... among other things.
The traditional, theistic conception of God includes the attribute --- "ground of all being" --- so I don't think Tillich's conception of God differs in that respect.
10 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettI’m not really sure myself that the distinction between pantheism and panentheism is that significant. I’m not sure that it isn’t an attempt to get out of pantheism without going to dualistic theism; and if it is, I’m not sure it works. It seems to imply that some aspect of the ground remains unmanifest.
The reason I ask is that I'm reading another book by Bishop Spong, Why Christianity Must Change Or Die, and he references Tillich and the 'ground of all being'. That's a nifty phrase and all, but how does one relate to it? You've used phrases like 'ground of being', 'power of being', 'being-itself', and 'manifestation of being', but how does one rela , then what exactly is this extra part that distinguishes it from pantheism?
I prefer the more Buddhist term “non-dualism” to pantheism just because some people seem to use pantheism in a way that implies a universe of distinctly separable parts that just can be added up to make the whole (“the One” ). I take a more “gestaltic” view in which the figures/forms (existents) are manifestations of the whole. The whole (the gestalt) consists of the figures/forms/manifestations and the implicate ground without which we cannot perceive the forms. For me the “ground of all being” just designates that in which and of which we inseparably are. When we die, we just become elements of that in its continual manifestation as the universe—the waterdrop falling again into the ocean is a typical metaphor.
From my study, folks who use the “G-word” for the ground of being (as opposed to, say, the Tao) seem generally to ascribe some kind of consciousness—or at least intentionality—to the GoB. Or, perhaps some of them have just evolved from older theistic traditions and subsequently redefined the term. In any event, there are some venerable traditions that use theistic language within a strictly non-dualist framework, and I see no need to critique them for it, as long as I understand them.
Tillich, I suspect, represents a panentheism in which the GoB is intentional and conscious (in some mysterious way perhaps), and in which some aspect of it remains unmanifest—and thus, in his language, “transcendant”. Maybe that’s just a thought that will help as you read about his views. It’s not a view that I hold, so I can’t defend it.
_________________________________________
EDIT: I guess you aren't having much luck with "exactly" what Tillich means, as opposed to what I or someone else would mean. It's just been too long since I read Tillich. Sorry.
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by vistesdWe can speak without voice for we are elements of "that" regardless of this bardo of ours😵
I’m not really sure myself that the distinction between pantheism and panentheism is that significant. I’m not sure that it isn’t an attempt to get out of pantheism without going to dualistic theism; and if it is, I’m not sure it works. It seems to imply that some aspect of the ground remains unmanifest.
I prefer the more Buddhist term “non-dualism” ...[text shortened]... to what I or someone else would mean. It's just been too long since I read Tillich. Sorry.