Whilst it is obvious that the soul or spirit should be the object of attention on a Board that calls itself Comparative Religion, I thought it might be useful to discuss the body, that unsung hero that keeps us propped in front of the keyboard, popping keys.
The view of the body, across the world's spiritual traditions, is so wide and various that to start from any one perspective seems to assume certain a priori axioms that might not necessarily be the case, so I suggest, in this discussion, we approach from the standpoint of philosophy, or rather metaphysics, and whilst religions and doctrines might be alluded to, fuller discussions should be continued a sub-threads in their relevant forums.
To some, the body is utterly disposable, nothing but a vehicle for the soul which is, in effect, a separate entity inhabiting, for reasons either pedagogic or punitive, the material realm. To others the body is a necessary mode of being but is of itself inconsequential and again, disposable – such a view covers the ideas of reincarnation in its transmigrational modes. To others again, the body exists in a conjoined hierarchical psychodynamism with the soul, and manifests and symbolises the soul in the material domain, in which each is intimately and indivisibly joined to the other, each subject to degrees of contingency and limitation according to its essential nature.
To begin, I would like to quote from the French metaphysician, Jean Borella:
"We will get a clear idea of it if we only consider the role played by our bodies as the instruments of our presence in the world. It is in fact through the body that we are present in a world of bodies. However, this presence, of which we believe ourselves to be the masters since it is somehow identified with us, is in reality a passive and involuntary presence."
In this context I believe we can assume the 'reality' of the world as given as it does not seriously impact the debate. Whether the world is real or not, within it the body is relative to it, so the body is ordered to that same degree – if the world is real, the body is real, if the world is illusionary, the body is nonetheless a real aspect of that illusion.
According to the French existential philosopher and phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty, perception has an active dimension, in that it is a primordial openness to the 'life world' (the Lebenswelt). This primordial openness is at the heart of his thesis of the primacy of perception. Merleau-Ponty develops the thesis according to which "all consciousness is perceptual consciousness".
What that consciousness perceives, then, is bodies.
(Later, I would like to open the idea of 'body' to address modes of being or existence other than the physical – to propose that the notion of 'presence', in any aspect other than the Absolute, which transcends all modes of manifestation, is inescapably tied to the concept of 'body'. Without a body, without a form, there is no identifiable 'presence', even an idea, in this context, comprises a 'body' in the sense that an idea comprises a content which necessarily excludes all other content.)
Borella went on to say:
Maurice Merleau-Ponty said, in The Phenomenology of Perception, that to see an object is "to be able to make a tour of it". And how is it possible to make a tour of it, if not because the object imparts itself indefinitely and inexhaustibly to the surveying gaze, because it can do nothing but offer itself to our gaze, it can do nothing but be seen. To be seen, and to be corporeally present, is all one. My corporeal presence is my visibility, but my visibility is not my own; it belongs to every gaze, unbeknownst to me and without being able to do anything about it – an ignorance and impotence constituting the every essence of my visibility. Thus, no one is master of his corporeal presence, and, even more, to be corporeally present is not to be master of this presence."
Taking Christianity as, perhaps, the advocate of a profound and radical position with regard to the body (following from and founded on Hebraic holism), I would like to offer a view of what the idea of 'resurrection' means in metaphysical terms:
Borella again:
"Christ's body is still the instrument of presence in the world of bodies, but, by a total change, it is no longer passive and involuntary. The soul which inhabits this instrument is entirely master of it and makes use of it at will. Christ can actualize the corporeal mode of His presence according to His own decision and as He judges good. The relationship that He entertains with the corporeal medium of His presence has been completely transformed. Christ is no longer seen, He causes Himself to be seen.
Simply put, He is no longer subject to the conditions of this corporeal world. His bodily presentification becomes, then, a simple prolongation of its spiritual reality, entirely dependent upon this reality – whereas in the state of fallen nature, it is the person's spiritual reality which extrinsically dependent upon its bodily presence."
Borella quoted from an essay on The Veil
Thomas
The view of the body, across the world's spiritual traditions, is so wide and various that to start from any one perspective seems to assume certain a priori axioms that might not necessarily be the case, so I suggest, in this discussion, we approach from the standpoint of philosophy, or rather metaphysics, and whilst religions and doctrines might be alluded to, fuller discussions should be continued a sub-threads in their relevant forums.
To some, the body is utterly disposable, nothing but a vehicle for the soul which is, in effect, a separate entity inhabiting, for reasons either pedagogic or punitive, the material realm. To others the body is a necessary mode of being but is of itself inconsequential and again, disposable – such a view covers the ideas of reincarnation in its transmigrational modes. To others again, the body exists in a conjoined hierarchical psychodynamism with the soul, and manifests and symbolises the soul in the material domain, in which each is intimately and indivisibly joined to the other, each subject to degrees of contingency and limitation according to its essential nature.
To begin, I would like to quote from the French metaphysician, Jean Borella:
"We will get a clear idea of it if we only consider the role played by our bodies as the instruments of our presence in the world. It is in fact through the body that we are present in a world of bodies. However, this presence, of which we believe ourselves to be the masters since it is somehow identified with us, is in reality a passive and involuntary presence."
In this context I believe we can assume the 'reality' of the world as given as it does not seriously impact the debate. Whether the world is real or not, within it the body is relative to it, so the body is ordered to that same degree – if the world is real, the body is real, if the world is illusionary, the body is nonetheless a real aspect of that illusion.
According to the French existential philosopher and phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty, perception has an active dimension, in that it is a primordial openness to the 'life world' (the Lebenswelt). This primordial openness is at the heart of his thesis of the primacy of perception. Merleau-Ponty develops the thesis according to which "all consciousness is perceptual consciousness".
What that consciousness perceives, then, is bodies.
(Later, I would like to open the idea of 'body' to address modes of being or existence other than the physical – to propose that the notion of 'presence', in any aspect other than the Absolute, which transcends all modes of manifestation, is inescapably tied to the concept of 'body'. Without a body, without a form, there is no identifiable 'presence', even an idea, in this context, comprises a 'body' in the sense that an idea comprises a content which necessarily excludes all other content.)
Borella went on to say:
Maurice Merleau-Ponty said, in The Phenomenology of Perception, that to see an object is "to be able to make a tour of it". And how is it possible to make a tour of it, if not because the object imparts itself indefinitely and inexhaustibly to the surveying gaze, because it can do nothing but offer itself to our gaze, it can do nothing but be seen. To be seen, and to be corporeally present, is all one. My corporeal presence is my visibility, but my visibility is not my own; it belongs to every gaze, unbeknownst to me and without being able to do anything about it – an ignorance and impotence constituting the every essence of my visibility. Thus, no one is master of his corporeal presence, and, even more, to be corporeally present is not to be master of this presence."
Taking Christianity as, perhaps, the advocate of a profound and radical position with regard to the body (following from and founded on Hebraic holism), I would like to offer a view of what the idea of 'resurrection' means in metaphysical terms:
Borella again:
"Christ's body is still the instrument of presence in the world of bodies, but, by a total change, it is no longer passive and involuntary. The soul which inhabits this instrument is entirely master of it and makes use of it at will. Christ can actualize the corporeal mode of His presence according to His own decision and as He judges good. The relationship that He entertains with the corporeal medium of His presence has been completely transformed. Christ is no longer seen, He causes Himself to be seen.
Simply put, He is no longer subject to the conditions of this corporeal world. His bodily presentification becomes, then, a simple prolongation of its spiritual reality, entirely dependent upon this reality – whereas in the state of fallen nature, it is the person's spiritual reality which extrinsically dependent upon its bodily presence."
Borella quoted from an essay on The Veil
Thomas
