Interesting; I must do more reading into Eastern Orthodoxy. :) — Janus

This is a good book (as an introduction) if you haven't already read it.

Thanks Agustino, I'll look into it.

The “oneness of existence” is neither monism nor dualism. — Toshihiko Izutsu

Right! Very important point and thank you for it. I had a thread on the old Forum, about 'a unity which is not an entity', which explored a similar idea. I think this is an aspect of non-dualism, which is a very elusive concept.

This is a good book (as an introduction) if you haven't already read it. — Agustino

It's a powerful work, that. I also have a book called A Different Christianity by Martin Amis, who was resident at Mt Athos whilst researching it. I do read some of those Eastern Orthodox theologians but I have to be careful as I could easily be pulled into their orbit ;-)

The ousia of God is God as God is.

Reading those quotes from Spinoza, it is worth recalling that the term 'substance' in philosophy, was translated from 'ousia' in Aristotle. I think it is nearer in meaning to 'being' or 'subject' than what we understand as 'substance'. So, in the case of Spinoza's 'one substance', if it is read as 'one Being', though perhaps not strictly accurate, it does convey something of importance, I think.

I also have a book called A Different Christianity by Martin Amis — Wayfarer

Thanks, I haven't come across that one yet.

I do read some of those Eastern Orthodox theologians but I have to be careful as I could easily be pulled into their orbit ;-) — Wayfarer

>:O

I think it is nearer in meaning to 'being' or 'subject' than what we understand as 'substance'. — Wayfarer

Yeah, it does cash out in terms of the interrelationship of all (one) existence. Spinoza was using the term in Aristotelian fashion anyway with slight Cartesian tints. Basically, substance was the bearer of modes and predicates (as per Aristotle's definition) and also that which had an independent existence - ie it existed in-itself and did not depend for its existence on another.

Gurdjieff's teaching about finer and courser 'energies'. The latter is comprehensively set forth in Ouspensky's A New Model of the Universe: Principles of the Psychological Method In Its Application to Problems of Science, Religion, and Art. It must be nearly thirty years since I read that book! — Janus

I've never read Gurdjieff through Ouspensky, I've read him through Osho who commented at length on him - I must have been 13 or so back then, so it's quite a long time ago.

Physical is the stuff we experience and it ontologically exists. Experience is physical state and it ontologically doesn't exist.

Gurdjieff at 13? That is an early start!

Gurdjieff at 13? That is an early start! — Janus

Yes, that's what happens when your atheist father has Osho books lying around >:O .

Correction: defined in terms of OUR physics.