{"title":"印度宗教哲学中的神、绝对神、非神论神性和一神论:进化神论的谱系学批判","authors":"Purushottama Bilimoria","doi":"10.1007/s11841-024-01023-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There are various permutations of theism: henotheism, pantheism, panentheism, a/theism, and nontheistic divinity. There is debate whether the idea of OmniGod was ever achieved in India. R. C. Zaehner argued that an evolutionary transition from pratenaturalism of the Vedas to Upaniṣad’s monism, culminated in monotheism with Purāṇas and the <i>Bhagavad Gītā.</i> I argue differently, beginning with ancient ritualistic polytheism, followed by unifying One Brahman, toward monistic panentheism and later non-dualism of <i>advaita</i> Vedānta. Under the influence of Asaṅga, Buddhism elevated the Buddha as the Great Divine Replacement. As a response or reaction, Brāhmaṇism forged Īśvara as God with the World as his Body. By 13th century, theistic dualism separated Īśvara from his <i>creatio.</i> Even Nyāya rational philosophy was persuaded by monotheism as demonstrated in their teleo-cosmological argument for the existence of Īśvara. I attribute all this to sectarian and doctrinal shifts rather than to any evolutionary teleology and/or predestined historicist movement.</p>","PeriodicalId":44736,"journal":{"name":"Sophia","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gods, Absolute, Non-theistic Divinity, and Monotheism in Indian Philosophy of Religion: A Genealogical Critique of Evolutionary Theogony\",\"authors\":\"Purushottama Bilimoria\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11841-024-01023-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>There are various permutations of theism: henotheism, pantheism, panentheism, a/theism, and nontheistic divinity. There is debate whether the idea of OmniGod was ever achieved in India. R. C. Zaehner argued that an evolutionary transition from pratenaturalism of the Vedas to Upaniṣad’s monism, culminated in monotheism with Purāṇas and the <i>Bhagavad Gītā.</i> I argue differently, beginning with ancient ritualistic polytheism, followed by unifying One Brahman, toward monistic panentheism and later non-dualism of <i>advaita</i> Vedānta. Under the influence of Asaṅga, Buddhism elevated the Buddha as the Great Divine Replacement. As a response or reaction, Brāhmaṇism forged Īśvara as God with the World as his Body. By 13th century, theistic dualism separated Īśvara from his <i>creatio.</i> Even Nyāya rational philosophy was persuaded by monotheism as demonstrated in their teleo-cosmological argument for the existence of Īśvara. I attribute all this to sectarian and doctrinal shifts rather than to any evolutionary teleology and/or predestined historicist movement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sophia\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-04\",\"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/s11841-024-01023-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sophia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-024-01023-z","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
摘要
有神论有多种变体:非神论、泛神论、泛神教、有神论/无神论以及非神论神性。印度是否曾经出现过全能神的观念,这一点还存在争议。R. C. Zaehner 认为,从《吠陀经》中的自然主义到《奥义书》中的一神论,是一个演化的过渡过程,最终在《普拉梵书》和《薄伽梵歌》中形成了一神论。我的论点与此不同,我的论点是从古代祭祀性多神教开始,然后是统一的一梵,再到一元泛神论,最后是阿吠陀的非二元论。在阿萨伊加的影响下,佛教将佛陀提升为伟大的神的替代者。作为回应或反动,梵天教(Brāhmaṇism)将Īśvara塑造成以世界为本体的神。到了 13 世纪,有神论的二元论将Īśvara 与他的创造物分离开来。即使是尼亚理性哲学也被一神论所说服,这在他们关于Īśvara存在的远宇宙论论证中得到了证明。我将这一切归因于教派和教义的转变,而非任何进化目的论和/或宿命历史主义运动。
Gods, Absolute, Non-theistic Divinity, and Monotheism in Indian Philosophy of Religion: A Genealogical Critique of Evolutionary Theogony
There are various permutations of theism: henotheism, pantheism, panentheism, a/theism, and nontheistic divinity. There is debate whether the idea of OmniGod was ever achieved in India. R. C. Zaehner argued that an evolutionary transition from pratenaturalism of the Vedas to Upaniṣad’s monism, culminated in monotheism with Purāṇas and the Bhagavad Gītā. I argue differently, beginning with ancient ritualistic polytheism, followed by unifying One Brahman, toward monistic panentheism and later non-dualism of advaita Vedānta. Under the influence of Asaṅga, Buddhism elevated the Buddha as the Great Divine Replacement. As a response or reaction, Brāhmaṇism forged Īśvara as God with the World as his Body. By 13th century, theistic dualism separated Īśvara from his creatio. Even Nyāya rational philosophy was persuaded by monotheism as demonstrated in their teleo-cosmological argument for the existence of Īśvara. I attribute all this to sectarian and doctrinal shifts rather than to any evolutionary teleology and/or predestined historicist movement.
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.