Comment by dr_dshiv | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dr_dshiv | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Can I try to convert you? Great! Thanks for your implied consent. Here goes:

The "One" god of Christianity comes more from Neoplatonism than Judaism. The Neoplatonic Oneness, which was washed out in various times in Christian history, is fully commensurable with contemporary science. Oneness can be experienced as the common mystical experience of "we are all one, man!" But for Neoplatonists, it only made sense that the ineffable and impossible to fully understand "One" was the origin of the universe and the basis of divinity.

This notion of Oneness is different from typical conceptions of the one god as a person. It is not. To understand true, original Christianity, one must reject the idea of personhood -- god isn't a person (and actually, neither are we--it's just a useful illusion)

In a nutshell: in the beginning of time, there was the Oneness and the emanation from the Oneness, which was known as the Logos. It makes sense here to think big bang: the whole universe in a single point. But from there, the emanations, the logos built everything else. The emanations can return to the Oneness through the creation of new wholes and harmonies (think molecules, stars and solar systems -- onenesses made of parts). This wholeness/harmony is the source of divine goodness. Here's the Christian part: when a person believes in the Logos they have eternal life because they recognize that their life is part of the eternal Logos.

That's what Christianity was to early church fathers like Origen or Clement. I forgot to mention -- Jesus was described as the incarnation of the logos.

Fun fact: Logos is equivalent to "Dao" in Daoism.

So, How'd I do? Are you more open now to the mysteries of Christianity?

There is something of a bait-and-switch when you segue from neoplatonic "oneness" to Christianity. The concept of "oneness" is vague enough that it cannot be in opposition to science, since it doesn't describe anything consequential or observable. It is basically a feel-good phrase, which is of course perfectly fine.

But Christianity implies certain ideas which are absolutely consequential, primarily that a certain historical person was the "Son of God" and that he literally rose from the dead. The idea that a single specific person could be God or the Son of God (as opposed to everybody else) is in direct opposition to any reasonable idea of God as "oneness".

Right. "Oneness" does feel good, doesn't it? It's not unmeaningful, either. It is the "perennial philosophy".

But you are right, there is a bait-and-switch. I don't claim to describe the beliefs of current Christians, but ancient Christians, often of the near-heretical type (Origen was never sainted for a reason). Just keep in mind that there is no source of truth in Christianity. That's what all the wars were about! And no one was "right."

Early church fathers described Jesus as the Incarnation of the Logos ("the word made flesh", in highly misleading English translations).

And, the logos worldview meant that everything was an emanation of the oneness. So the logos/jesus lives in all of us.

"Son of God"=emanation of the One. See that? That is what son of God originally meant! See Philo of Alexandria for his judaeo-greco depiction of the logos as son of God in 10BC.

Rising from the dead... born of a virgin... Well, those are classic tropes in mystery religions. Fine for allegorical purposes.

What are your favourite sources for this information?

It sounds quite compelling.

Thanks! I wish someone could put it all together in a book. It is very much a mystery. The best scholars can provide the info, but not the interpretation.

Wouter Hanugraff (read "western esoterism, a guide for the perplexed")

Shwep.net

Pythagorean Sourcebook

Oration on the dignity of man

Iamblicus

Origen

Plotinus

Philo of Alexandria

Many more. It is so fulfilling to read these old texts!

Check Perseus project for searching old texts.

Not bad, but the Alexandrian tradition was not the only way to interpret Christianity. The idea that Christianity's understanding of God's oneness was merely borrowed from Neoplatonism is an old cliche, but it leaves too much out. Without going into this too much, I would say that the early Christian thinkers accepted the Platonic and Neoplatonic problem of trying to answer how the one related to the many, or how it became many, but their aswers were often their own and quite creative. E.g. Athanasius's distinction beween essence and will.

Right, definitely not claiming this is the only way to interpret christianity. But, the design constraints are: how to interpret christianity in a manner that is commensurable with modern science and ancient traditions?

Hence...

Note that there is no need to find the original interpretation (impossible), only an early, valid, and widespread interpretation. And whatever it is, it should provide spiritual meaning AND not conflict with empirical reality.

I would not treat Athanasius kindly, considering his role in the Arian heresy. But I'll check out his work.

Also, I don't mean to claim that Christianity "merely borrowed". Christian thought had a huge influence on Neoplatonism (Origen and Plotinus were schoolmates). I'm only saying that interpreting Christianity without Platonism is really missing out. (Platonism was actively removed from later Christianity, as it was seen as pagan.)

I agree with your assessment that people are missing out when they don't consider the Neoplatonic influence on Christianity, especially when stating it this way is the only way of getting people to look at it from a different perspective.

"Eastern Christian philosophy," or simply "Eastern Theology" really came into its own, and while it is absolutely valid to study Church writers in contrast and relationship to Neoplatonic philosophy, they developed their own tradition. Thus, parsing the logos tradition as if Origen, the Cappadocians, Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus the Confessor, etc., were "philosophers" in their own right is actually quite a fruitful endeavor.

Yes! I came into all this from Pythagoreanism, which had such an impact on Plato. It was a scientific religion, essentially, with no fixed doctrine. And it played a huge role in Neoplatonism, early Christianity and the renaissance. Pythagoras, the same guy we all learn about in middle school!

You might like shwep.net

I am a subscriber. He is a really good historian -- and interviews even better ones.

Also the book "Western Esoterism: a guide for the Perplexed".

Because this whole Oneness concept is right at the thumping heart of "the esoteric". There are real mysteries there, like you wouldn't believe. And, humanistic magic, I'm telling you!

This Oneness is what the followers of Advaita(Non-dualism) call as Brahman or the Buddhists call as Nirvana(Nothingness). I have seen arguments that Plato was also influenced by Eastern philosophy, but I don't know much about it.

I was interested in Advaita for a long time, and used to read Upanishads which expound about it. but recently I have come across a different school of thought, which calls this Oneness/Brahman/Nirvana as Self/I. Ramana Maharishi who died 70 years back was a recent proponent of it. but I have seen references to it from different cultures too, like the hebrew word YHWH meaning Self, and the Persian word for God "Khuda" meaning Self in Old Persian.

I recently came across Bernadette Roberts, who is a Catholic Nun, who seems to have not heard of the concept of Self from Advaita/Hinduism, but have reached to similar opinions about Self from her own contemplation/Prayers in her monastery. and in this video she explains it from her perspective as a Christian Mystic. She also has some books, which I haven't read. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb5496uQ3lk

This is very much Gospel of John. Other gospels are less into this Logos stuff, but John clearly loved it.

"... individual soul (called Atman) is not different from Ultimate Reality (called Brahman). He also taught that there is only one essential principle called Brahman and everything else is a kind of expression of that one Brahman..... "

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

As an atheist, I really liked your comment, and yes, I am more open to what you wrote, but... I am not one bit more open towards the Religion, because that is as far removed from what you wrote here as it is possible, I think.

Nice! Success. I too am an atheist of person gods. This ineffable oneness of the universe, though... It's got me intrigued. It's not a person. It's like, I'd imagine that most alien civilisations would have at some point a spiritual belief system aligned to it. And, I'd argue that it hits at the core of Christianity -- and holds some hope for its future. Like, wouldn't it be nice if Christianity could somehow evolve?

It's not hard, either. They just have to reject the idea that the Bible was written by God, which is farcical on the face of it. Then religion is about allegory, cultural traditions and having something to do with your kids on Sunday morning.

I'm sure you're also a fan of Baruch Spinoza then - he was expelled from his Jewish community for having very similar thoughts about God, however he never converted to Christianity. His books were also put on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Catholic Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

Reply on news.ycombinator.com