Article Sidebar
Published:
Oct 15, 2008Article Details
The author(s) retain copyright on work published by AOSIS unless specified otherwise.
Licensing and publishing rights
Author(s) of work published by AOSIS are required to grant AOSIS the unlimited rights to publish the definitive work in any format, language and medium, for any lawful purpose. AOSIS requires journal authors to publish their work in open access under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence.
Read more here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The authors retain the non-exclusive right to do anything they wish with the published article(s), provided attribution is given to the applicable journal with details of the original publication, as set out in the official citation of the article published in the journal. The retained right specifically includes the right to post the article on the authors’ or their institution’s websites or in institutional repositories.
Previously published work may have been published under a different licence. We advise the community that if they would like to reuse the work to consult the applicable licence at article level.
Main Article Content
Die plek van Empedokles in die metafisies-mistieke tradisie
Abstract
This article argues that Empedocles was more than a pre-Socratic philosopher. His thinking was also essentially mystical and should be situated on a large map of metaphysical-mystical continuities with the following dimensions: A historically discernable cultural and religious pool, encompassing not only South-Eastern Europe, Asia Minor and Mediterranean Africa, but also the north-eastern Eurasian shamanic tradition, and India; an historically largely inaccesible esoteric tradition; a set of structural elements of the
human psyche, running under and across historical religions through time; and the development of a new convergence of previously historically unconnected mystical traditions in the social and cultural circumstances of today. In particular, the article investigates similarities and differences between Empedocles and Indian (specifically Buddhist) views on various issues, such as the four roots and the cyclical dialectic of love and strife. In that context the article notes the remarkable interpretation of Empedocles by Peter Kingsley which seems to draw Empedocles closer to Buddhism, but without explicating this implication of his reception.
HTS Theological Studies Vol. 63 (2) 2007: pp. 409-430
