Ioan Dura

If we want to define today's society in one word, trying to capture its meaning, it would be polarization. The interdependence between all social segments, articulated by globalization, has a double function: unpacking the identitary elements that enter in the structure of society and framing them in a relational dynamic. In this situation are Theology and Science, which, of course, maintain a number of components under their general names. Can we talk about a congruence between these two dimensions of human knowledge? Or they are developing completely separately and antagonistic in social progress? According to Ian G. Barbour there are four types of relation between Science and Religion: conflict, independence, dialogue, integration. This article intends to highlight the congruence between Theology and Science in the paradigm of neo-patristic synthesis, which explores in a phenomenological, theological and philosophical way the relationship between these two. Neo-patristic synthesis is a theological movement from the 20th century, generated by the initiative of the orthodox theologian G. Florovsky.

The Transcendence represents the essential issue of each religion or philosophical paradigms. In this study I intent to highlight another paradigm of the language, definition and Transcendence relationship other than the Christian-theological and philosophical- Greek one, namely the philosophy of vedantic non-dualism – is the understanding of the Ultimate Reality declared in Chandogya-Upanisad VI.2.1 as One-without-the-second. The whole philosophical-religious perspective of Sankara depends of this non-dual Ultimate Reality understanding. In this order, I intend to approximate the technical exercise of the definition’s status in Indian logic, in general, and in the Advaita`s optics, in particular. In Advaita Vedanta, were elaborated two definitions about Brahman, namely: accidental definition and essential definition. To give a definition to a thing is to mark the differentiation or the vyavrtti of every other thing and this result is obtained, generally, by the referral to a property, which is distinctive of it. The definition is different from the characterization, qualification (visesana, which is the positive identification of the attributes, and which characterizes a particular object.

Intrinsic and essential nature of Brahman, as Light luminous-in-self of Witness Consciousness requires a radically apophatic discourse. Brahman is Ātman, the inner Self, of all beings, is uniform, nondual, unchangeable, Ultimate Reality which cannot be objectified in any way, since It is the unseen seer, the unthinkable thinker, the unknown knower. The Upanishads require the unique method of excluding all empirical modes of teaching or knowledge about Brahman. And, this method shows Brahman revealed by itself, by simply removing the imaginary veil of wrong thinking, constructed by projecting limiting adjuncts of ignorance. Brahman, as the inner Self, needs no definition or evidence to be known. Really speaking, it is impossible for anyone „to define” in words or „to formulate” an idea about Brahman, for the simple reason that It is beyond to discursive thought. Brahman, Ultimate Reality, is non-dual light, pure Consciousness as intuitive experience, through which all human activities are performed. Just in this spectrum of non-dual experience, must be understood the negation neti, neti in Sankara`s thought: far from being a mere exercise of philosophical dexterity, via negativa has a practical application, experiential in knowledge of Ultimate Reality.

The Transcendence represents the essential issue of each religion or philosophical paradigms. In this study I intent to highlight another paradigm of the language, definition and Transcendence relationship other than the Christian-theological and philosophical- Greek one, namely the philosophy of vedantic non-dualism – is the understanding of the Ultimate Reality declared in Chandogya-Upanisad VI.2.1 as Onewithout- the-second. The whole philosophical-religious perspective of Sankara depends of this non-dual Ultimate Reality understanding. In this order, I intend to approximate the technical exercise of the definition’s status in Indian logic, in general, and in the Advaita`s optics, in particular. In Advaita Vedanta, were elaborated two definitions about Brahman, namely: accidental definition and essential definition. To give a definition to a thing is to mark the differentiation or the vyavrtti of every other thing and this result is obtained, generally, by the referral to a property, which is distinctive of it. The definition is different from the characterization, qualification (visesana, which is the positive identification of the attributes, and which characterizes a particular object.