- Introduction
- Unity in Multiplicity
- Transcendence of Logic
- Theological Context Differences
- Practical and Philosophical Implications
- Philosophical Implications of Divine Unity
- Comparative Analysis in Mysticism
- Supra-Rational Divine Real
- Supra-Rational vs. Ain Soph
- Metaphysical Underpinnings of Oneness
- Mystical Experiences Across Cultures
Nicholas of Cusa and the Jewish concept of Echad
Curated by rachav_foundation
Nicholas of Cusa’s concept of the Coincidentia Oppositorum (Conjunction of Opposites) and the Jewish notion of Echad (oneness) both explore divine unity, but differ in their theological contexts and philosophical implications. While Cusa’s idea reconciles logical contradictions within Christian thought, Echad emphasizes an indivisible yet complex divine unity in Jewish monotheism.
Unity in Multiplicity
Both Nicholas of Cusa’s concept of Coincidentia Oppositorum and the Jewish notion of Echad explore the idea of unity in multiplicity, though they approach it from different philosophical and theological perspectives.
In Cusa’s thought, the coincidence of opposites in God implies that divine unity encompasses and transcends all multiplicity. He argues that in the infinite divine nature, distinctions that appear contradictory in finite reality are reconciled1. This idea is exemplified in his statement that “the Infinite is above all that”2, suggesting that God’s unity is not opposed to multiplicity but rather includes it in a higher synthesis.
The Jewish concept of Echad similarly emphasizes a complex unity that encompasses apparent diversity. In the Kabbalistic tradition, this is expressed through the idea of the Sefirot – divine emanations that represent different aspects of God’s nature, yet are ultimately unified in the Ein Sof (the Infinite)3. This understanding goes beyond simple numerical oneness to a qualitative unity that embraces multiplicity without being divided by it.
Both concepts challenge the notion that unity and multiplicity are mutually exclusive. In Cusa’s philosophy, this is expressed through the idea that God is “not the whole, to whom a part could be opposed, nor can it be a part”2. Similarly, in Jewish thought, the declaration “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One (Echad)” is understood not as a negation of complexity, but as an affirmation of a unity that transcends human categories of singular and plural4.
This understanding of unity in multiplicity has profound implications for how reality is perceived. In both traditions, it suggests that the apparent diversity of the created world is ultimately grounded in a deeper unity. Cusa expresses this by stating that everything is “enveloped in God and developed in the universe”2, while Jewish mysticism sees the physical world as a manifestation of divine unity, albeit in a concealed form3.
The concept of unity in multiplicity also informs approaches to religious diversity. Cusa’s philosophy provided a framework for understanding different religious traditions as varied expressions of a single divine truth5. While traditional Jewish thought maintains a strict monotheism, the concept of Echad as a complex unity has been used by some modern Jewish thinkers to engage in interfaith dialogue and recognize spiritual truths in other traditions6.
In both cases, the idea of unity in multiplicity invites a deeper, more nuanced understanding of reality that goes beyond simple dualities. It challenges believers to perceive the underlying connections between seemingly disparate phenomena and to seek a more comprehensive view of existence that embraces both unity and diversity.
6 sources
Transcendence of Logic
Both Nicholas of Cusa’s Coincidentia Oppositorum and the Jewish concept of Echad challenge conventional logic and rational thought, pushing the boundaries of human understanding in their attempts to grasp divine unity.
Cusa’s idea of the coincidence of opposites directly confronts the principle of non-contradiction, a fundamental axiom of classical logic. By asserting that contradictory attributes can coexist in God, Cusa proposes a “supra-rational” realm where human logic no longer applies1. This transcendence of logic is not a rejection of reason, but rather an acknowledgment of its limitations when confronted with the infinite nature of the divine. Cusa argues that finite human intellect, bound by the laws of logic, cannot fully comprehend the infinite, where opposites coincide2.
Similarly, the Jewish concept of Echad pushes beyond the confines of conventional logic. While affirming God’s absolute unity, it simultaneously embraces a complex understanding of that unity which defies simple categorization. The Shema’s declaration of God’s oneness is not merely a numerical statement but a qualitative assertion that transcends logical categories3. This paradoxical nature of Echad is particularly evident in Kabbalistic thought, where God is understood as both Ein Sof (the Infinite) and as manifesting through the ten Sefirot, maintaining unity within apparent multiplicity4.
Both concepts invite a form of thinking that goes beyond binary oppositions and linear logic. Cusa’s approach suggests that at the highest level of reality, logical contradictions are resolved in a higher synthesis that human reason cannot fully grasp5. This idea resonates with certain interpretations of quantum physics, where particles can exist in seemingly contradictory states simultaneously, challenging classical logic at the fundamental level of reality.
The Jewish mystical tradition similarly emphasizes forms of knowledge that transcend discursive reasoning. The practice of contemplating Echad is seen not as an intellectual exercise but as a means of attaining a state of consciousness that surpasses logical thought6. This approach aligns with the broader mystical notion of “unknowing” or “learned ignorance,” where the limitations of human knowledge are recognized as a pathway to a higher form of understanding.
Both Cusa’s Coincidentia Oppositorum and the Jewish concept of Echad thus point towards a form of “trans-logical” thinking that acknowledges the inadequacy of human reason in fully grasping divine realities. This approach doesn’t negate logic but rather situates it within a broader spectrum of human cognition and experience. By challenging the boundaries of conventional thought, these concepts open up new possibilities for understanding the nature of reality and the divine, inviting a more holistic and inclusive approach to knowledge that embraces paradox and mystery7.
7 sources
Theological Context Differences
iep.utm.edu
Nicholas of Cusa’s concept of Coincidentia Oppositorum emerged within the context of Christian mystical theology, while the Jewish notion of Echad developed within the framework of monotheistic Judaism. These distinct theological contexts significantly shape the nuances and implications of each concept.
In Christian thought, Cusa’s idea of the coincidence of opposites arose as a way to reconcile apparent contradictions in divine attributes and to express the transcendent nature of God. Cusa argued that in God, seemingly opposite qualities could coexist without contradiction1. This approach allowed for a more dynamic understanding of divine nature within Christian theology, challenging traditional Aristotelian logic.
The Jewish concept of Echad, on the other hand, is deeply rooted in the monotheistic declaration of the Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One (Echad)” 2. This foundational statement emphasizes God’s absolute unity and indivisibility. Unlike Cusa’s reconciliation of opposites, Echad does not seek to resolve contradictions but rather asserts a complex, all-encompassing oneness that transcends human categories3.
In Jewish thought, Echad is not merely a numerical concept but a qualitative one. It implies that God’s unity is unique and incomparable, encompassing all of reality without being divided or multiplied4. This understanding differs from Cusa’s approach, which allows for the coexistence of opposites within the divine nature.
The theological contexts also influence the practical applications of these concepts. In Jewish practice, meditation on Echad during the recitation of the Shema is a central act of faith, affirming God’s absolute unity5. In contrast, Cusa’s idea, while influential in Christian mysticism, did not become a central liturgical or devotional practice in the same way.
These contextual differences highlight the unique contributions of each tradition to the understanding of divine unity, showcasing the diverse approaches to conceptualizing the nature of God within different theological frameworks.
5 sources
Practical and Philosophical Implications
The practical and philosophical implications of Nicholas of Cusa’s Coincidentia Oppositorum and the Jewish concept of Echad extend beyond theological discourse, influencing approaches to ethics, interfaith dialogue, and personal spiritual practice.
In terms of ethics, Cusa’s idea of the coincidence of opposites encourages a more nuanced approach to moral dilemmas. It suggests that seemingly contradictory ethical positions might be reconciled at a higher level of understanding, promoting flexibility and compassion in moral reasoning. This perspective can be particularly valuable in addressing complex ethical issues where multiple valid concerns appear to conflict1.
The Jewish concept of Echad, emphasizing the all-encompassing unity of God, has profound implications for environmental ethics and social justice. If all of creation is ultimately unified in the divine oneness, it follows that harm to any part of creation is harm to the whole. This understanding has been used to support arguments for environmental stewardship and social equality within Jewish thought2.
Both concepts have significant implications for interfaith dialogue. Cusa’s approach, which seeks to reconcile apparent contradictions, can be seen as a model for finding common ground between different religious traditions. In fact, Cusa himself applied this thinking to interfaith relations, attempting to find unity among Christianity, Judaism, and Islam3. The concept of Echad, while firmly rooted in Jewish monotheism, also offers a perspective that can facilitate interfaith understanding by emphasizing the underlying unity of all existence.
In terms of personal spiritual practice, Cusa’s ideas invite practitioners to embrace paradox and transcend dualistic thinking in their contemplation of the divine. This approach can lead to a more expansive and inclusive spiritual outlook. The Jewish focus on Echad, particularly in the recitation of the Shema, provides a daily practice of affirming and meditating on divine unity. This regular affirmation can shape one’s worldview and approach to life’s challenges4.
Philosophically, both concepts challenge traditional logic and push the boundaries of human understanding. Cusa’s work influenced later thinkers in the development of dialectical reasoning and laid groundwork for ideas that would later emerge in German Idealism5. The Jewish concept of Echad, with its emphasis on complex unity, has contributed to philosophical discussions about the nature of reality and the relationship between unity and multiplicity.
In the realm of mysticism, both approaches offer paths to transcendent experiences. Cusa’s coincidence of opposites provides a framework for mystical union that transcends logical categories, while the contemplation of Echad in Jewish mysticism aims at an experience of absolute divine unity6.
These practical and philosophical implications demonstrate how theological concepts can have far-reaching effects on various aspects of thought and practice, shaping approaches to ethics, interfaith relations, personal spirituality, and philosophical inquiry.
6 sources
Philosophical Implications of Divine Unity
The philosophical implications of divine unity, as conceived in both Nicholas of Cusa’s Coincidentia Oppositorum and the Jewish concept of Echad, extend into profound ontological and epistemological considerations.
In terms of ontology, these concepts challenge traditional notions of being and existence. Cusa’s idea suggests that at the highest level of reality, opposites coincide, implying a transcendent state of being that surpasses human categories1. This concept resonates with the notion of divine simplicity in classical theism, which posits that God’s essence is identical to His existence1. Similarly, the Jewish understanding of Echad implies that God’s unity is not merely numerical but ontological, suggesting a form of being that is fundamentally different from all created entities2.
These concepts of divine unity also have significant epistemological implications. Both ideas suggest limits to human knowledge and understanding. Cusa’s approach implies that human reason, bound by the principle of non-contradiction, cannot fully comprehend the divine nature where opposites coincide3. This aligns with the concept of “learned ignorance” (docta ignorantia), which acknowledges the limitations of human intellect in grasping divine realities3. The Jewish concept of Echad similarly points to the ineffability of God’s true nature, suggesting that while we can affirm God’s unity, we cannot fully comprehend it2.
Moreover, these concepts of divine unity challenge traditional metaphysical categories. Cusa’s idea that God is “beyond all opposites” suggests a reality that transcends even the categories of being and non-being3. This resonates with negative theology, which approaches the divine by stating what God is not rather than what God is. The Jewish concept of Echad similarly implies that God’s unity transcends all categories and distinctions, being “prior to all and including all”3.
These ideas also have implications for the philosophy of language and the limits of human conceptualization. Both concepts suggest that our language and concepts, rooted in finite experience, are inadequate to fully capture the nature of divine unity. This aligns with the broader philosophical question of whether human language and thought can adequately represent transcendent realities4.
In the realm of philosophical theology, these concepts of divine unity challenge anthropomorphic conceptions of God. By emphasizing a unity that transcends human categories, they push towards a more abstract and transcendent understanding of divinity. This has implications for how we conceive of divine attributes and actions, suggesting that these must be understood in a radically different way from human attributes and actions12.
Finally, these concepts of divine unity have implications for philosophical approaches to religious diversity. Cusa’s idea of the coincidence of opposites can be seen as providing a framework for understanding how seemingly contradictory religious claims might be reconciled at a higher level of reality3. The Jewish concept of Echad, while firmly monotheistic, implies a unity that encompasses all of reality, potentially providing a basis for understanding diverse religious expressions as different perspectives on a single, all-encompassing truth25.
5 sources
Comparative Analysis in Mysticism
Nicholas of Cusa’s concept of Coincidentia Oppositorum and the Jewish notion of Echad both find profound expression in mystical traditions, offering unique perspectives on the nature of divine unity and human spiritual experience.
In Christian mysticism, Cusa’s idea of the coincidence of opposites provides a framework for understanding mystical experiences that transcend logical categories. This concept resonates with the apophatic tradition in Christian mysticism, which emphasizes the ineffability of God and the limitations of human language in describing divine realities1. Mystics like Meister Eckhart and John of the Cross, who preceded and followed Cusa respectively, explored similar themes of transcending opposites in their contemplative practices.
The Jewish mystical tradition, particularly Kabbalah, offers a rich exploration of the concept of Echad. In Kabbalistic thought, the Sefirot (divine emanations) represent different aspects of God’s nature, yet are ultimately unified in the Ein Sof (the Infinite)2. This complex unity mirrors Cusa’s idea of opposites coinciding in the divine, though approached through a distinctly Jewish lens. The meditative practice of Yichud (unification) in Jewish mysticism aims at experiencing the underlying unity of all existence, echoing the philosophical implications of Echad.
Both mystical approaches emphasize the transformative power of contemplating divine unity. In Cusa’s thought, the recognition that opposites coincide in God can lead to a profound shift in consciousness, transcending dualistic thinking3. Similarly, in Jewish mysticism, deep meditation on the Shema and the concept of Echad is seen as a path to spiritual enlightenment and union with the divine4.
However, there are notable differences in how these mystical traditions approach divine unity. Cusa’s concept tends to emphasize the reconciliation of logical contradictions, reflecting a more intellectually-oriented mysticism common in Christian Neoplatonism. In contrast, Jewish mystical approaches to Echad often focus on the experiential realization of unity, emphasizing practices like devekut (cleaving to God) and kavvanah (intentionality in prayer)2.
Both traditions also grapple with the paradox of divine immanence and transcendence. Cusa’s coincidence of opposites suggests a God who is both utterly beyond human categories and intimately present in all things. The Kabbalistic concept of Tzimtzum (divine contraction) similarly attempts to reconcile God’s infinite nature with the existence of a finite world, echoing themes found in Cusa’s work5.
In both mystical approaches, the contemplation of divine unity is seen not just as a theoretical exercise, but as a transformative practice with profound implications for the mystic’s relationship to the world. This shared emphasis on the practical and experiential aspects of divine unity highlights the deep connections between these seemingly disparate mystical traditions, offering rich ground for comparative religious studies and interfaith dialogue.
5 sources
Supra-Rational Divine Realm
Nicholas of Cusa’s concept of a “supra-rational realm” represents a profound philosophical and theological innovation that pushes the boundaries of human understanding and logic. This realm, where opposites coincide and conventional reasoning breaks down, is central to Cusa’s vision of the divine and his approach to knowledge.
For Cusa, the supra-rational realm is not merely a theoretical construct but a necessary consequence of contemplating the infinite nature of God. He argues that human reason, bound by the principle of non-contradiction, is inherently limited when attempting to comprehend the divine1. In this realm, seemingly contradictory attributes can coexist without logical conflict, transcending the constraints of Aristotelian logic that dominated medieval thought.
Cusa’s approach to this supra-rational realm is exemplified in his concept of “learned ignorance” (docta ignorantia). This paradoxical term suggests that the highest form of knowledge about God comes from recognizing the limitations of human intellect2. By acknowledging our inability to fully grasp the divine through rational means, Cusa argues, we open ourselves to a higher form of understanding that transcends logical categories.
The supra-rational realm in Cusa’s philosophy is not a rejection of reason but rather an expansion of it. He proposes that while reason is invaluable for understanding the finite world, it must be transcended to approach the infinite. This transcendence is not achieved through abandoning reason but through pushing it to its limits and recognizing where it falls short3.
Cusa’s concept has significant implications for epistemology and the philosophy of religion. It suggests that ultimate truth lies beyond the reach of discursive reasoning and can only be approached through a form of intuitive or mystical apprehension. This idea resonates with apophatic theological traditions, which emphasize what cannot be said about God rather than what can4.
The supra-rational realm also plays a crucial role in Cusa’s approach to religious diversity. By positing a level of reality where apparent contradictions are reconciled, he provides a framework for understanding how different religious traditions might represent varied perspectives on a single, ineffable truth5.
Importantly, Cusa’s concept of the supra-rational is not limited to theological discourse. It has implications for mathematics and science as well. His work on the infinite and the nature of measurement anticipates later developments in mathematics, particularly in the field of non-Euclidean geometry1.
In essence, Nicholas of Cusa’s supra-rational realm represents a bold attempt to bridge the gap between finite human understanding and infinite divine reality. It challenges us to expand our cognitive horizons and embrace a more nuanced, paradoxical view of ultimate truth that transcends the limitations of conventional logic.
5 sources
Supra-Rational vs. Ain Soph
en.wikipedia.org
Nicholas of Cusa’s concept of the supra-rational realm and the Kabbalistic notion of Ain Soph both represent attempts to conceptualize the inconceivable nature of the divine, yet they approach this task from distinct philosophical and mystical traditions.
The supra-rational realm in Cusa’s philosophy is a domain where logical contradictions are transcended and opposites coincide. It is a realm beyond human reason, where the limitations of finite understanding are acknowledged in the face of the infinite divine1. This concept challenges the boundaries of logic and invites a form of knowing that surpasses discursive reasoning.
In Kabbalah, Ain Soph (also spelled Ein Sof) represents the infinite, unknowable essence of God before any self-manifestation2. It is often described as “without end” or “the Infinite,” signifying a state of divine being that precedes and transcends all attributes and limitations2. Ain Soph is considered the ultimate source of all existence, yet it remains fundamentally beyond human comprehension.
Both concepts share the idea of transcendence beyond human categories of thought. Cusa’s supra-rational realm posits a level of reality where contradictions are resolved in a higher synthesis, while Ain Soph represents a state of divine unity that precedes all differentiation3. In both cases, these concepts point to a reality that cannot be fully grasped by the human intellect.
However, there are notable differences in their philosophical implications. Cusa’s approach, rooted in Christian Neoplatonism, seeks to reconcile opposites within the divine nature, suggesting a dynamic interplay of attributes within God1. The Kabbalistic concept of Ain Soph, on the other hand, emphasizes absolute unity and indivisibility, with all attributes and manifestations emerging only in subsequent stages of divine emanation3.
Cusa’s supra-rational realm serves as a bridge between human understanding and divine reality, inviting contemplation of paradoxes as a means of approaching the divine1. In contrast, Ain Soph in Kabbalah is often seen as utterly transcendent and unknowable, with mystical practices focusing more on the subsequent emanations (Sefirot) as aspects of the divine that can be contemplated3.
Both concepts challenge conventional logic and push the boundaries of human thought. Cusa’s idea that contradictions coincide in the divine realm resonates with the Kabbalistic notion that Ain Soph contains all potentialities in perfect unity21. This similarity points to a shared recognition of the limitations of human reason in grasping ultimate reality.
In terms of their impact on religious thought, Cusa’s concept provided a framework for addressing theological paradoxes and fostering interfaith dialogue1. The Kabbalistic notion of Ain Soph, while more esoteric, has profoundly influenced Jewish mystical thought and practice, shaping understandings of divine nature and the process of creation3.
Both the supra-rational realm and Ain Soph invite a form of “learned ignorance,” acknowledging that the highest wisdom about the divine comes from recognizing the limits of human knowledge1. This shared emphasis on transcendence and ineffability highlights the deep connections between these seemingly disparate mystical and philosophical traditions, offering rich ground for comparative religious studies and interfaith dialogue.
3 sources
Metaphysical Underpinnings of Oneness
philosophy.institute
The metaphysical underpinnings of oneness in both Nicholas of Cusa’s Coincidentia Oppositorum and the Jewish concept of Echad are rooted in a profound understanding of the nature of reality and the divine. These concepts challenge conventional notions of existence and unity, pushing the boundaries of human comprehension.
In Cusa’s philosophy, the coincidence of opposites in the divine realm suggests a fundamental unity that transcends logical categories. This unity is not merely a reconciliation of contradictions, but a higher state of being where distinctions dissolve. Cusa argues that God, as the “absolute maximum,” encompasses all reality in a way that surpasses human understanding1. This concept aligns with the idea of divine simplicity, where God’s essence is identical to His existence, free from any composition or division2.
The Jewish notion of Echad similarly posits a unity that goes beyond numerical oneness. In Kabbalistic thought, the Ein Sof (Infinite) is understood as the ultimate source of all existence, a state of pure unity that precedes any differentiation3. This concept of oneness is not opposed to multiplicity but rather encompasses it in a higher synthesis. As expressed in the Zohar, “He is One, but not in number”3, indicating a qualitative rather than quantitative unity.
Both approaches grapple with the paradox of how multiplicity can emerge from absolute unity. Cusa’s concept suggests that all diversity in creation is ultimately grounded in and reconciled within divine unity. In Jewish mysticism, this is addressed through the doctrine of Tzimtzum (divine contraction), which explains how the infinite Ein Sof makes space for finite existence while maintaining its essential unity4.
The metaphysical implications of these concepts extend to the nature of being itself. In Cusa’s thought, true being is found in the coincidence of opposites, suggesting that ultimate reality transcends the categories of existence and non-existence as we understand them1. Similarly, in Kabbalistic thought, true existence is rooted in the Ein Sof, with all created beings deriving their reality from this ultimate source3.
These concepts of oneness also challenge traditional notions of causality. In both approaches, the relationship between the divine unity and the multiplicity of creation is not one of simple cause and effect, but a more complex interplay of emanation and manifestation. This perspective aligns with neoplatonic ideas of reality as a series of emanations from a primordial unity5.
Furthermore, both Cusa’s Coincidentia Oppositorum and the Jewish concept of Echad imply a form of panentheism, where all of reality is contained within the divine unity while the divine simultaneously transcends all of creation. This view reconciles immanence and transcendence, suggesting that God is both utterly beyond the world and intimately present within it13.
The metaphysical underpinnings of oneness in these traditions also have implications for the nature of consciousness and perception. They suggest that our ordinary dualistic mode of perception, which sees the world in terms of distinct objects and opposites, is ultimately an illusion or a limited perspective on a deeper, unified reality6. This aligns with mystical experiences across traditions that report a dissolution of boundaries and a sense of unity with all existence.
In essence, the metaphysical foundations of oneness in both Cusa’s philosophy and Jewish mysticism point to a reality that is fundamentally unified, transcendent, and beyond the grasp of ordinary human cognition. These concepts invite us to expand our understanding of existence and unity, challenging us to perceive the world in a more holistic and interconnected way.
6 sources
Mystical Experiences Across Cultures
Mystical experiences across cultures share striking similarities, suggesting a common core of human spiritual encounters that transcends religious and cultural boundaries. These experiences often involve a sense of unity with the divine or ultimate reality, transcendence of time and space, ineffability, and profound positive emotions12.
William James, in his seminal work “The Varieties of Religious Experience,” identified four key characteristics of mystical experiences: ineffability, noetic quality, transiency, and passivity3. This framework has been influential in shaping subsequent research on mysticism across cultures.
Walter Stace further developed this concept, proposing a “common core” of mystical experience consisting of eight elements: ego loss, timelessness/spacelessness, total unity, inner subjectivity, positive affect, sacredness, noetic quality, and ineffability2. This model suggests that mystical experiences share fundamental similarities regardless of cultural context.
However, the interpretation and expression of these experiences often vary significantly based on cultural and religious backgrounds. For instance, while a Christian mystic might describe union with God, a Buddhist practitioner might report a state of non-dual awareness or emptiness4. These differences in interpretation have led some scholars to question the universality of mystical experiences.
Recent research has attempted to reconcile these perspectives. A study by Chen et al. found that Tibetan Buddhist practitioners reported many of the core experiences suggested by Stace, but interpreted them differently based on their cultural context2. This suggests that while the basic elements of mystical experiences may be universal, their interpretation and significance can vary widely across cultures.
Mystical experiences are often associated with profound personal transformation and shifts in worldview4. Across various traditions, these experiences are reported to lead to increased compassion, reduced fear of death, and a sense of interconnectedness with all beings13.
The study of mystical experiences across cultures has implications for understanding human consciousness and the nature of reality. Some researchers propose that these experiences may point to a deeper, unified reality that transcends ordinary perception5. This aligns with concepts like Nicholas of Cusa’s “supra-rational realm” and the Jewish mystical notion of “Echad” or absolute unity.
However, it’s important to note that the universality of mystical experiences remains a subject of debate in academic circles. Some scholars argue that the apparent similarities may be overstated or reflect the influence of cross-cultural exchange rather than a truly universal human experience6.
Despite these debates, the study of mystical experiences across cultures continues to provide valuable insights into human spirituality, consciousness, and the nature of reality. It challenges us to consider the possibility of common threads in human spiritual experience while respecting the diverse ways these experiences are interpreted and expressed across different cultural contexts23.
6 sources
