Dear Matthew, Thanks for your comments. I agree with you that Anselm’s argument is distinctive. I think that throughout history many persons strongly inclined to both philosophy and religiosity have not always maintained a perfect balance between the two. You may be right that Anselm was exploring logic for its own sake. I would only add that ultimately, he keeps his explorations within religious boundaries, perhaps for reasons both pious and practical.
Thanks for your learned, helpful comments. Best wishes, Howard > On Jun 24, 2024, at 9:44 AM, Matthew Kapstein <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Howard, > > Thank you for your reply. I perfectly agree with you in regard to the > contextual parallels between these and many other aspects of Indian and > medieval Western philosophies. Carlos Fraenkel’s fine book, Philosophical > Religions from Plato to Spinoza (Cambridge 2012), for example, strikes me on > almost every page as offering points of fruitful comparison. > > However, I still believe that, at its core, Anselm’s argument was quite > distinctive, and that this was recognized not only in analytic philosophy, > but by a long line of thinkers including Descartes, who appropriated the > argument, and Kant, who rejected it. > > But whether we agree or not about all the fine points, I certainly welcome > more comparative reflection on Rūpa and many others, who deserve more > attention than they have so far received in contemporary philosophy of > religion. > > bedt, > Matthew > > Sent from Proton Mail <https://proton.me/mail/home> for iOS > > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 15:25, Howard Resnick <[email protected] <mailto:On Mon, > Jun 24, 2024 at 15:25, Howard Resnick <<a href=>> wrote: >> >> Thank you Matthew for your comments. I will respectfully defend the notion >> of a real and significant philosophical link between Anselm and Rupa, and >> perhaps other medieval Indian thinkers. >> >> I realize that this is an Indology group and not a forum on European >> scholasticism, however I think the connection between a major Scholastic >> thinker and medieval Indian apologetics is worth pursing a little farther >> here. >> >> I suggest that the major problem with the argument against an Anselm-Rupa >> link is that it takes Anselm out of his 11c historical context and portrays >> him almost as a modern analytic philosopher, concerned with ontology for its >> own sake. Thus the claim that “He is sneakily making a purely logical >> point,” does not seem consistent with historical evidence. Anselm includes >> the argument in his Proslogion, a “meditative prayer” where he declares his >> intention as “faith seeking understanding.” ("fides quaerens intellectum" or >> "faith seeking understanding”). It would be balanced and accurate to see >> Anselm as keenly interested in logic, but sincerely engaging that study in >> God’s service, a view entirely consistent with his historical period. >> >> You mention the opposition of Thomas Aquinas, but Thomas' objection was that >> Anselm’s argument is a priori, based on reason alone. Thomas favored >> posteriori arguments since he believed that our knowledge, even of God, >> begins with sensory experience and proceeds to reason. >> >> Rūpa, like Anselm, makes an a priori argument, since he a assumes a priori >> the existence of Kṛṣṇa, Nāṛāyṇa, Śiva etc. He does not infer their existence >> from his experience of the world. Thus the opposition of Thomas reinforces >> the link between Anselm and Rupa, rather than refuting it. >> >> Best wishes, >> Howard >> >> >>> On Jun 24, 2024, at 4:06 AM, Matthew Kapstein <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> It seems to me that there may be some uncertainties about the precise >>> nature of Anselm's argument in this thread. It is not to be identified as >>> an argument about "maximal greatness" per se, a topic that was very well >>> investigated in the Buddhist context by Paul Griffiths in his book On Being >>> Buddha >>> https://sunypress.edu/Books/O/On-Being-Buddha2 >>> and that seems to me, in one way or another, to be at stake in many of the >>> interesting comments made by contributors to thus thread, which concern the >>> bigger and better qualities ascribed to the divinity. >>> >>> This is not what Anslem is doing, however. He is sneakily making a purely >>> logical point. >>> First, the very conception of "that than which no greater can be conceived" >>> must include the concept of being, for that which lacks being is less great >>> that that which does not. Note that this premise is not at all about >>> superadding or magnifying all sorts of qualities - it concerns, in pure >>> abstraction, a logical entailment of the concept "that than which no >>> greater can be conceived." >>> If we then suppose, as Anselm does, that God alone fills this concept - and >>> again it is a purely logical point that "that than which no greater can be >>> conceived" must be unque; this follows from the concept itself, call it God >>> or what you like - then it follows that the concept of God includes the >>> concept of being. >>> >>> The problem is, of course, that even if we buy into this conceptually >>> (which St. Thomas, and I. Kant, for example, did not), it seems to imply >>> only something about the concept of God, and not about its real existence. >>> This is where the second iteration in terms of necessary being comes in, >>> for the concept of necessary being, it would seem, can only apply to a >>> being that really is. A necessary being cannot be something that is not. QED >>> >>> None of the arguments that have so far been adduced in this thread as >>> "resembling" Anselm's seem to me to resemble it in fact in its central >>> concerns with the logical entailments of conceivability and necessity. I >>> have been trying for years to find something in Indian philosophy that >>> might prove otherwise, but have not so far succeeded. But Indian philosophy >>> is a vast domain, approaching maximal greatness, so something may well turn >>> up. I hope that someone will respond to Dan Lusthaus's suggestion about >>> Vallabha, for instance, to see whether there might be something there. It >>> is certainly true that Indian philosophy knew the main elements from which >>> the ontological argument is forged - this much seems true for the Vedantic >>> idea of sac-cid-Ananda, which shows us that the very concept of Brahman >>> entails its being - but were the few additional steps taken by Anselm ever >>> really paralleled? >>> >>> I suggest that we distinguish clearly between the general idea of maximal >>> greatness and Anselm's very precise assertion that any such idea, without >>> the explicit assumption of being and the logical entailments thereof, >>> remains incomplete. >>> >>> best to all, >>> Matthew >>> >>> Matthew T. Kapstein >>> Professor emeritus >>> Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, PSL Research University, Paris >>> >>> Associate >>> The University of Chicago Divinity School >>> >>> https://ephe.academia.edu/MatthewKapstein >>> >>> https://vajrabookshop.com/product/the-life-and-work-of-auleshi/ >>> >>> https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501716218/tibetan-manuscripts-and-early-printed-books-volume-i/#bookTabs=1 >>> >>> https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501771255/tibetan-manuscripts-and-early-printed-books-volume-ii/#bookTabs=1 >>> >>> https://brill.com/edcollbook/title/60949 >>> >>> Sent with Proton Mail <https://proton.me/> secure email. >>> >>> On Monday, June 24th, 2024 at 8:16 AM, dmitry shevchenko via INDOLOGY >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Dear Jeffery, >>>> >>>> In the Yogasūtra-bhāṣya, attributed to Vyāsa, there is a following >>>> argument, which is somewhat akin to the ontological argument. We observe >>>> in the world creatures with various cognitive capacities. Some perceive >>>> very small things, other very large things, some very remote things, etc. >>>> The fact that there are various degrees in cognitive capacities suggests >>>> that there must be the highest cognitive degree, i.e., omniscience. And >>>> the omniscient being is īśvara. >>>> It is not entirely clear whether the purpose of the argument is to prove >>>> the existence of God. I believe it is primarily meant to establish the >>>> possibility of omniscience, against which argue some Mīmāṃsakas. >>>> Nevertheless, it is based on a similar usage of the idea of "greatness" >>>> and on conceivability of its possession in the greatest measure... >>>> I'm attaching Larson's translation of this argument from the YSBh on the >>>> YS 1.25, with an elaboration by Vācaspati Miśra, who further atttempts to >>>> establish that omniscience can only be ascribed to God, and not to human >>>> teachers such as the Buddha and Mahāvīra. >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> Dimitry >>>> >>>> On Monday, June 24, 2024 at 01:11:44 AM GMT+3, Jeffery Long via INDOLOGY >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> That is extremely helpful, Howard. Thank you! >>>> >>>> All the best, >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone >>>> <https://mail.onelink.me/107872968?pid=nativeplacement&c=Global_Acquisition_YMktg_315_Internal_EmailSignature&af_sub1=Acquisition&af_sub2=Global_YMktg&af_sub3=&af_sub4=100000604&af_sub5=EmailSignature__Static_> >>>> >>>> On Sunday, June 23, 2024, 6:07 PM, Howard Resnick <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Jeff, >>>> >>>> There is a passage in the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu by Rūpa Gosvāmī which is >>>> a sort of variation on Anselm’s argument. Anselm of course is making an >>>> ontological argument for the existence itself of God, whereas Rūpa argues >>>> that Kṛṣṇa must be the most complete form or conception of God, in >>>> comparison to Nārāyaṇa, Śīva etc, because he possesses the greatest number >>>> of divine qualities. >>>> >>>> What somehow connects Anselm and Rūpa, is that both assume that if God is >>>> infinitely great, then the greatest conception of God is closest to the >>>> truth. Anselm deploys this argument, of course, in assuming that existence >>>> itself is a positive attribute which must therefore be possessed by God. >>>> >>>> Rūpa assumes existence and then argues in terms of other attributes. But >>>> both share the assumption that if God is infinitely great, then then >>>> greatest conception is closest to the truth. That is what connects them, >>>> in my view. >>>> >>>> Thanks for the topic! >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> Howard >>>> >>>>> On Jun 23, 2024, at 12:17 PM, Jeffery Long via INDOLOGY >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Colleagues, >>>> >>>> Forgive me if this question has already been raised at some point on this >>>> list. >>>> >>>> Are any of you aware of arguments developed in Indian philosophical >>>> systems akin to the ontological arguments for the existence of God raised >>>> by St. Anselm? The closest thing I can think of is Śaṅkara’s argument that >>>> existence is self-evident. >>>> >>>> With much gratitude in advance, >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Jeffery D. Long >>>> Carl W. Zeigler Professor of Religion, Philosophy, & Asian Studies >>>> School of Arts & Humanities >>>> Elizabethtown College >>>> Elizabethtown, PA >>>> >>>> https://etown.academia.edu/JefferyLong >>>> >>>> Series Editor, Explorations in Indic Traditions: Ethical, Philosophical, >>>> and Theological >>>> Lexington Books >>>> >>>> “One who makes a habit of prayer and meditation will easily overcome all >>>> difficulties and remain calm and unruffled in the midst of the trials of >>>> life.” (Holy Mother Sarada Devi) >>>> >>>> “We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself.” (Carl Sagan) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> INDOLOGY mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> INDOLOGY mailing list >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology >>> >>
_______________________________________________ INDOLOGY mailing list [email protected] https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
