The Meditating Philosopher | Practicing Philosophy: Philosophical Fellowship (reading from Nishida Kitaro's Last Writings) @TheMeditatingPhilosopher | Uploaded March 2022 | Updated October 2024, 9 hours ago.
This is an example of the philosophical fellowship group practice.
We also did a stoic hesychastic prayer contemplation before we started: youtu.be/jAPcvxUveTY
This practice is based on the work of Ran Lahav, John Verkaeke, and others. Here are the steps we did:
Philosophical Fellowship Instructions
1. Find your center
2. Remind yourself of the anagogic levels
3. Choose a text, and choose a reader
4. Slow reading
a. Designated reader reads the entire text.
b. After the reading, choose an order and then use it for
the rest of the practice.
5. Chanting
a. Designated reader chooses a central phrase or
sentence from the text, and it is chanted in rounds.
6. Precious speaking
a. 1 or 2 sentences maximum.
b. Don’t speak about the text but to the text
c. Convey much more than you say; what is being
provoked in you? What is being evoked in you? Try to
invoke the voice-perspective-presence of the sage
(i.e. the author of the passage).
7. Intentional conversation- don’t speak about the text but to
the text
a. 4-5 sentences
b. Avoid speaking automatically, authoritatively,
autobiographically, or merely seeking agreement.
Instead, jazz-riff on what other people are saying.
Throughout, you are trying to presence and internalize
the sage.
8. Free form discussion about the text while including the
voice-perspective-presence of the sage.
9. Take away.
The text sample we used was the first 4 paragraphs from Nishida Kitaro's Last Writings: Nothingness and the Religious Worldview.
As Daniel mentions at the end, was a lifetime meditator, head of a prestigious and influential philosophy department in Kyoto, Japan, and suffered many tragedies throughout his life, yet remained dedicated to understanding religion and philosophy, producing some of the most original philosophical works of the last 100 years of history.
You can find the book on amazon. :)
Here's the part we read and used:
Not everyone is an artist. But to some extent at least everyone can appreciate art. Nor is everyone a theologian, and rare is the man who experiences a religious conversion. To some degree, however, any person can understand religion. There is probably no one who does not feel a strong resonance in the depths of his heart when he reads the fervent confessions of faith of those who have gained religious faith or the expressions of belief of the great religious figures. Moreover, upon falling into a condition of extreme unhappiness, there is probably no one who does not feel some religious sentiment welling up from the depths of his own soul.
For religion is an event of the soul. Philosophers cannot fabricate religion from their own thought systems. They must explain this event of the soul. To do so, they must experience religious sentiment in themselves to some degree.
Granting that the man of religion speaks from true personal experience, I will contend that just as people who are not artists appreciate art to some extent, so too ordinary people know what is meant by religion. There is no one who will declare that he has no conscience. If there were such a person he would in fact be engaging in a form of self-insult. There are people, however, who say they do not appreciate art; and especially in the case of religion, many insist they cannot understand it. They declare that they have no experience of a religious kind. Indeed, some philosophers even pride themselves in taking a contrary position. Religion, they say, is unscientific and illogical, or at most something subjectively mystical. Or they contend it is not that man is created in the image of God, but rather that God has been created in the image of man. Religion, we are told, is a kind of narcotic.
Now one cannot discuss colors with a blind man or discuss sounds with a deaf man. If people say they do not understand religion at all, I cannot argue with them. However, even though I do not consider myself competent to speak about religion to others, I cannot follow those who say they do not understand religion because it is unscientific and illogical.
This is an example of the philosophical fellowship group practice.
We also did a stoic hesychastic prayer contemplation before we started: youtu.be/jAPcvxUveTY
This practice is based on the work of Ran Lahav, John Verkaeke, and others. Here are the steps we did:
Philosophical Fellowship Instructions
1. Find your center
2. Remind yourself of the anagogic levels
3. Choose a text, and choose a reader
4. Slow reading
a. Designated reader reads the entire text.
b. After the reading, choose an order and then use it for
the rest of the practice.
5. Chanting
a. Designated reader chooses a central phrase or
sentence from the text, and it is chanted in rounds.
6. Precious speaking
a. 1 or 2 sentences maximum.
b. Don’t speak about the text but to the text
c. Convey much more than you say; what is being
provoked in you? What is being evoked in you? Try to
invoke the voice-perspective-presence of the sage
(i.e. the author of the passage).
7. Intentional conversation- don’t speak about the text but to
the text
a. 4-5 sentences
b. Avoid speaking automatically, authoritatively,
autobiographically, or merely seeking agreement.
Instead, jazz-riff on what other people are saying.
Throughout, you are trying to presence and internalize
the sage.
8. Free form discussion about the text while including the
voice-perspective-presence of the sage.
9. Take away.
The text sample we used was the first 4 paragraphs from Nishida Kitaro's Last Writings: Nothingness and the Religious Worldview.
As Daniel mentions at the end, was a lifetime meditator, head of a prestigious and influential philosophy department in Kyoto, Japan, and suffered many tragedies throughout his life, yet remained dedicated to understanding religion and philosophy, producing some of the most original philosophical works of the last 100 years of history.
You can find the book on amazon. :)
Here's the part we read and used:
Not everyone is an artist. But to some extent at least everyone can appreciate art. Nor is everyone a theologian, and rare is the man who experiences a religious conversion. To some degree, however, any person can understand religion. There is probably no one who does not feel a strong resonance in the depths of his heart when he reads the fervent confessions of faith of those who have gained religious faith or the expressions of belief of the great religious figures. Moreover, upon falling into a condition of extreme unhappiness, there is probably no one who does not feel some religious sentiment welling up from the depths of his own soul.
For religion is an event of the soul. Philosophers cannot fabricate religion from their own thought systems. They must explain this event of the soul. To do so, they must experience religious sentiment in themselves to some degree.
Granting that the man of religion speaks from true personal experience, I will contend that just as people who are not artists appreciate art to some extent, so too ordinary people know what is meant by religion. There is no one who will declare that he has no conscience. If there were such a person he would in fact be engaging in a form of self-insult. There are people, however, who say they do not appreciate art; and especially in the case of religion, many insist they cannot understand it. They declare that they have no experience of a religious kind. Indeed, some philosophers even pride themselves in taking a contrary position. Religion, they say, is unscientific and illogical, or at most something subjectively mystical. Or they contend it is not that man is created in the image of God, but rather that God has been created in the image of man. Religion, we are told, is a kind of narcotic.
Now one cannot discuss colors with a blind man or discuss sounds with a deaf man. If people say they do not understand religion at all, I cannot argue with them. However, even though I do not consider myself competent to speak about religion to others, I cannot follow those who say they do not understand religion because it is unscientific and illogical.
