Unlimited Nature: A Śaivist Model of Divine Greatness

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Sophia Pub Date : 2024-02-23 DOI:10.1007/s11841-024-01005-1
Davide Andrea Zappulli
{"title":"Unlimited Nature: A Śaivist Model of Divine Greatness","authors":"Davide Andrea Zappulli","doi":"10.1007/s11841-024-01005-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The notion of maximal greatness is arguably part of the very concept of God: something greater than God is not even possible. But how should we understand this notion? The aim of this paper is to provide a Śaivist answer to this question by analyzing the form of theism advocated in the Pratyabhijñā tradition. First, I extract a model of divine greatness, the Hierarchical Model, from Nagasawa’s work <i>Maximal God</i>. According to the Hierarchical Model, God is that than which nothing could be greater by virtue of being better suited than all other beings in relation to certain great-making properties (§1). I then offer an analysis of the form of theism advocated in the Pratyabhijñā tradition by discussing passages from the works of Somānanda, the founder of the Pratyabhijñā school, and of Utpaladeva, the most prominent of Somānanda’s disciples. I argue that the Pratyabhijñā theist cannot account for divine greatness in terms of the Hierarchical Model. My argument is that the Hierarchical Model requires a comparison between God and other beings that cannot be made with the Pratyabhijñā God (§2). Finally, I develop an original alternative model, the Unlimited Nature Model, that accounts for God’s maximal greatness in a way that suits Pratyabhijñā’s theism. According to the Unlimited Nature Model, the nature of all ordinary beings is metaphysically limited as a result of realizing only a small portion of the potential of what could be, and God is maximally great because only he has a completely unlimited nature (§3).</p>","PeriodicalId":44736,"journal":{"name":"Sophia","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sophia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-024-01005-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The notion of maximal greatness is arguably part of the very concept of God: something greater than God is not even possible. But how should we understand this notion? The aim of this paper is to provide a Śaivist answer to this question by analyzing the form of theism advocated in the Pratyabhijñā tradition. First, I extract a model of divine greatness, the Hierarchical Model, from Nagasawa’s work Maximal God. According to the Hierarchical Model, God is that than which nothing could be greater by virtue of being better suited than all other beings in relation to certain great-making properties (§1). I then offer an analysis of the form of theism advocated in the Pratyabhijñā tradition by discussing passages from the works of Somānanda, the founder of the Pratyabhijñā school, and of Utpaladeva, the most prominent of Somānanda’s disciples. I argue that the Pratyabhijñā theist cannot account for divine greatness in terms of the Hierarchical Model. My argument is that the Hierarchical Model requires a comparison between God and other beings that cannot be made with the Pratyabhijñā God (§2). Finally, I develop an original alternative model, the Unlimited Nature Model, that accounts for God’s maximal greatness in a way that suits Pratyabhijñā’s theism. According to the Unlimited Nature Model, the nature of all ordinary beings is metaphysically limited as a result of realizing only a small portion of the potential of what could be, and God is maximally great because only he has a completely unlimited nature (§3).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
无限的自然:神圣伟大的圣雄模式
最大伟大的概念可以说是上帝概念的一部分:比上帝更伟大的东西是不可能存在的。但是,我们应该如何理解这个概念呢?本文旨在通过分析普拉提亚比贾传统所倡导的有神论形式,为这一问题提供一个圣战主义的答案。首先,我从长泽的著作《最大的神》中提取了一个关于神的伟大的模型,即等级模型。根据 "等级模式",神因其在某些创造伟大的属性方面优于所有其他存在物,所以没有什么比它更伟大了(§1)。然后,我通过讨论普拉提亚布希雅学派的创始人索摩南达(Somānanda)和索摩南达最杰出的弟子乌特巴拉德瓦(Utpaladeva)的作品中的段落,对普拉提亚布希雅传统所倡导的有神论形式进行了分析。我认为,Pratyabhijñā神论者无法用等级模式来解释神的伟大。我的论点是,等级模式要求将神与其他存在物进行比较,而普拉亚毗尼神无法做到这一点(§2)。最后,我提出了一个独创的替代模型--无限自然模型,它以适合 Pratyabhijñā有神论的方式解释了神的最大伟大之处。根据 "无限自然模式",所有普通存在物的本性都是形而上学的有限性,因为它们只实现了可能存在的潜能的一小部分,而上帝是最大的伟大,因为只有他才拥有完全无限的本性(§3)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Sophia
Sophia PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Sophia is now published by Springer. The back files, all the way to Volume 1:1, are available via SpringerLink!   Covers both analytic and continental philosophy of religionConsiders both western and non-western perspectives, including Asian and indigenousIncludes specialist contributions, e.g. on feminist and postcolonial philosophy of religionSince its inception in 1962, Sophia has been devoted to providing a forum for discussions in philosophy and religion, focusing on the interstices between metaphysics and theological thinking. The discussions take cognizance of the wider ambience of the sciences (''natural'' philosophy and human/social sciences), ethical and moral concerns in the public sphere, critical feminist theology and cross-cultural perspectives. Sophia''s cross-cultural and cross-frontier approach is reflected not only in the international composition of its editorial board, but also in its consideration of analytic, continental, Asian and indigenous responses to issues and developments in the field of philosophy of religion.
期刊最新文献
Buddhaghosa’s Model of Temporality seen through the Prism of Bergson’s Duration What Kind of ‘God’ do Hindu Arguments for the Divine Show? Five Novel Divine Attributes of Brahman Reconstructing William Lane Craig’s Explanation of Absolute Time Based on Mulla Sadra’s Philosophy Mirabai Seeks God: A Journey of Devotional Love and Longing “Palamism” and “Barlaamism” in the Russian Name-Glorifiers Controversy of the 1910s: The Philosophical Background
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1