Behind-the-scenes stories of Yoga Science popularization: A Historic Overview

Part 60, continuation of previous article. We go to the late 19th century Russia and learn about Leo Tolstoy. He surprisingly came up with ethical and moral values that humans can spontaneously learn to follow. He had profound reverence for Jesus Christ's Sermon on the Mount. The book Yogic Therapy (written by Dr. S. L. Vinekar under the guidance and co-authorship of Swami Kuvalayananda) goes into details about the reasoning for inclusion of Yamas and Niyamas as essential preparation for the practice of Yoga as recommended by Patanjali. The book expounds the Hatha Yoga while it also introduces its readers to Patanjali's concepts. What is different is that this book attempts to integrate all techniques as converging to attain the goal of enhanced balance for human body and mind to function in a harmonious manner. Where do the moral and ethical thoughts and actions fit into this journey toward the end goal? The book explains it in its beginning chapters. The authors make a distinct point that these guidelines for ethics and morals in Yoga, are internally driven rather than externally imposed. The personality growth and maturation will be enhanced by contemplating on how these guidelines if correctly followed can bring peace of mind, reduce the stressful conflicts, and help mitigate physical and social stress. Leo Tolstoy articulated similar code of conduct and principles of ethics taking inspiration from the Sermon on the Mount.

Dialog with Perplexity.ai

Can you give me a short summary of the novel "War and Peace" by Tolstoy?

Answer

Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace" is an epic novel set in Russia during the Napoleonic era, primarily focusing on the period of the French invasion of Russia in 1812. The story follows three main characters:

1. Pierre Bezukhov: The illegitimate son of a count who unexpectedly inherits a fortune. He struggles with his purpose in life and becomes involved in Freemasonry.
2. Prince Andrei Bolkonsky: An intelligent and ambitious military officer who seeks glory in war.
3. Natasha Rostova: A young, lively woman from a noble family who matures throughout the novel.

The novel begins in 1805 in St. Petersburg, introducing these characters and others at a society party. As Napoleon's forces threaten Russia, the story follows the characters through their personal lives, romantic entanglements, and experiences during wartime.Key events include:

• The Battle of Austerlitz, where Andrei is wounded
• Pierre's unhappy marriage to Helene Kuragina and his subsequent spiritual journey
• Natasha's romantic relationships, including her engagement to Andrei and her near-elopement with Anatole Kuragin
• The French invasion of Russia in 1812 and the Battle of Borodino
• The burning of Moscow and the French retreat

Throughout the novel, Tolstoy interweaves historical events with the personal lives of his characters, exploring themes of free will, determinism, and the nature of history. The story concludes with an epilogue set in 1820, showing the peacetime lives of the surviving characters."War and Peace" is renowned for its realistic portrayal of 19th-century Russian society, its psychological insights, and its philosophical discussions on the nature of war and the course of history.

Answer

Based on the search results, the main themes explored in Leo Tolstoy's "War and Peace" include:

1. The interplay between war and peace: The novel examines how war affects society and individuals, contrasting times of conflict with periods of peace.
2. European culture and Russian society: Tolstoy provides a broad view of 19th century Russian society against the backdrop of European cultural influences.
3. Love and marriage: The novel explores romantic relationships, contrasting marriages for love versus marriages for money or social status.
4. Spirituality and the search for meaning: Characters like Pierre Bezukhov and Prince Andrei Bolkonsky undergo spiritual journeys and search for purpose in life.
5. Patriotism: The novel examines both the positive and negative aspects of patriotic fervor during wartime.
6. The role of individuals in history: Tolstoy challenges the idea that "great men" shape history, instead arguing that historical events result from countless small decisions made by ordinary people.
7. The irrationality of war: Tolstoy portrays war as a senseless endeavor that diminishes humanity and causes people to act irrationally.
8. Social change and progress: The characters navigate tensions between tradition and societal changes in 19th century Russia.
9. Family and generational relationships: The novel follows several aristocratic families, exploring their dynamics and how they change over time.
10. Free will and determinism: Tolstoy grapples with questions about individual agency versus the influence of larger historical forces.

These themes are interwoven throughout the novel's narrative, which combines fictional characters' personal stories with real historical events to create a comprehensive portrait of Russian life during the Napoleonic era.

Publication Year

1869

Language

Originally in Russian

Spirituality plays a significant role in the lives of several main characters in "War and Peace," serving as a source of guidance, comfort, and personal growth:

1. Pierre Bezukhov: Spirituality is central to Pierre's character development. He undergoes a spiritual journey throughout the novel, exploring various philosophies and belief systems. Pierre becomes involved in Freemasonry, seeking meaning and purpose in life. His spiritual quest culminates in a profound experience during his imprisonment, where he meets Platon Karataev and gains a new perspective on life and happiness.
2. Prince Andrei Bolkonsky: Though initially skeptical and atheistic, Andrei experiences moments of spiritual awakening. A key instance is when he's wounded at the Battle of Austerlitz and has a transcendent experience gazing at the "lofty sky," which gives him a sense of the insignificance of worldly concerns. His spiritual journey continues as he grapples with life's meaning, especially in his final days.
3. Natasha Rostova: While not overtly spiritual at first, Natasha's character arc includes moments of deep emotional and spiritual connection, particularly in her relationship with nature and music. Later in the novel, she finds solace and purpose in religious faith.
4. Princess Marya Bolkonskaya: Marya is portrayed as deeply religious from the beginning. Her faith is a constant source of strength and guidance, helping her navigate difficult relationships and life challenges. However, Tolstoy also shows her struggling with reconciling her faith with human emotions like irritation and jealousy.
5. Platon Karataev: Though a minor character, Platon represents Tolstoy's ideal of simple, spiritual wisdom. His influence on Pierre is profound, embodying a kind of innate spirituality that contrasts with Pierre's intellectual approach.

Tolstoy uses these characters to explore different aspects of spirituality, from organized religion to personal philosophies and mystical experiences. He portrays spirituality as a dynamic force in their lives, influencing their decisions, relationships, and overall worldviews. However, Tolstoy also shows the complexities and challenges of maintaining spiritual beliefs, as characters often struggle to reconcile their ideals with the realities of life and human nature.The novel suggests that spiritual growth is an ongoing process, subject to ups and downs, rather than a linear progression. This is evident in how characters like Pierre and Andrei experience moments of profound insight, only to later find themselves grappling with new doubts or reverting to old patterns of behavior.

Answer

In "War and Peace," Tolstoy intertwines the themes of forgiveness and spirituality, presenting them as deeply connected aspects of human experience and personal growth. Here's how forgiveness relates to spirituality in the novel:

1. Spiritual transformation: For several characters, the act of forgiveness is a crucial part of their spiritual journey. Pierre Bezukhov, in particular, undergoes a profound spiritual transformation that culminates in his ability to forgive. His experience as a prisoner of war and his encounter with Platon Karataev lead him to a deeper understanding of life and the importance of forgiveness.
2. Inner peace: Tolstoy portrays forgiveness as a path to inner peace and spiritual fulfillment. Characters who learn to forgive, such as Natasha Rostova after her failed elopement with Anatole Kuragin, find a sense of peace and renewed purpose in life.
3. Overcoming ego: The act of forgiveness is presented as a way to transcend one's ego and connect with a higher spiritual purpose. Prince Andrei Bolkonsky's deathbed forgiveness of Anatole Kuragin is a powerful example of this, showing how letting go of resentment can lead to a profound spiritual experience.
4. Christian values: Tolstoy, influenced by his own spiritual beliefs, incorporates Christian themes of forgiveness and redemption throughout the novel. The idea of forgiving one's enemies, as exemplified by characters like Princess Marya Bolkonskaya, reflects Christian teachings and is portrayed as a spiritual virtue.
5. Interconnectedness: Forgiveness in the novel is often linked to a sense of universal interconnectedness, a key aspect of Tolstoy's spiritual philosophy. As characters forgive, they often experience a deeper connection to others and to the world around them.
6. Moral growth: The ability to forgive is presented as a sign of moral and spiritual maturity. Characters who struggle with forgiveness, like Nikolai Rostov, are often shown as being at earlier stages of their spiritual development.
7. Healing and renewal: Tolstoy portrays forgiveness as a spiritually healing act, both for the forgiver and the forgiven. This is evident in the reconciliation between Natasha and Pierre, which leads to a renewal of their spirits and a deeper, more meaningful relationship.

By intertwining forgiveness with spirituality, Tolstoy suggests that true spiritual growth involves the ability to forgive and move beyond personal grievances. He presents forgiveness not just as a moral act, but as a transformative spiritual experience that can lead to profound personal growth and a deeper understanding of life's meaning.

I am beginning to understand the emphasis on forgiveness as one major quality representing what you call or Tolstoy calls spirituality. Can you explain what "spirituality" meant in pre-communist Russia? What was Tolstoy's concept of spirituality? Was that primarily built on the concept of sin and forgiveness to oneself and others?

Answer

Tolstoy's concept of spirituality and the broader understanding of spirituality in pre-communist Russia were complex and multifaceted. Here's an overview based on the available information:

1. Pre-communist Russian spirituality: In pre-communist Russia, spirituality was deeply rooted in Orthodox Christianity, which emphasized:

• The importance of ritual and tradition
• The role of the Church as a mediator between God and people
• The concept of spiritual elders (startsy) as guides for spiritual life
• A focus on mystical experiences and the inner life

1. Tolstoy's concept of spirituality: Tolstoy developed a more individualistic and rationalistic approach to spirituality that diverged from Orthodox traditions:

• He rejected many Orthodox doctrines and rituals, focusing instead on the moral teachings of Jesus.
• Tolstoy emphasized direct personal connection with God, bypassing Church authority.
• He believed in the importance of living a simple, moral life aligned with spiritual principles.
• Tolstoy saw spirituality as a path to inner peace and fulfillment, rather than focusing on the afterlife.

1. Sin and forgiveness in Tolstoy's spirituality: While sin and forgiveness were important elements, they weren't the sole focus of Tolstoy's spiritual philosophy:

• Tolstoy believed in the power of forgiveness as a means of spiritual growth and inner peace.
• He saw forgiveness as a way to transcend ego and connect with a higher spiritual purpose.
• Tolstoy viewed sin more as a deviation from one's true spiritual nature rather than a transgression against Church doctrine.

1. Other key aspects of Tolstoy's spirituality:

• Non-violence and pacifism: Tolstoy interpreted Jesus' teachings, especially the Sermon on the Mount, as a call for non-resistance to evil.
• Asceticism: Influenced by Schopenhauer, Tolstoy came to value simplicity and self-denial as spiritual virtues.
• Universal love: He emphasized love for all humanity as a core spiritual principle.
• Moral self-improvement: Tolstoy saw spirituality as an ongoing process of personal growth and ethical development.

1. Influence and context: Tolstoy's spiritual views were shaped by and in reaction to:

• His aristocratic background and subsequent rejection of wealth and status
• His study of various philosophical and religious traditions, including Buddhism and Hinduism
• The social and political climate of late 19th-century Russia

It's important to note that Tolstoy's spiritual ideas, while influential, were often at odds with the Orthodox Church and led to his excommunication. His concept of spirituality was more individualistic and ethically focused than the traditional Russian Orthodox understanding, which placed greater emphasis on communal worship, sacraments, and Church authority.

It is interesting to note that Tolstoy was excommunicated by the Orthodox Christian Church. Ignoring the political aspects of that decision, like viewing him as a threat to the establishment (Church) and its vested interests whatever they might be, what are the main reasons for his philosophical differences with the Church's teachings that specifically impacted his excommunication. This question is not raised to instigate any controversy or interfaith conflict. Mere curiosity.

Answer

Tolstoy's excommunication from the Russian Orthodox Church in 1901 was indeed rooted in significant philosophical and theological differences with Church teachings. The main reasons for his excommunication, focusing on the doctrinal rather than political aspects, were:

1. Rejection of Church authority: Tolstoy denied the authority of the Church as an institution, believing that individuals should have a direct relationship with God without intermediaries.
2. Denial of key Christian doctrines: He rejected several fundamental Orthodox Christian beliefs, including:The divinity of Jesus Christ, The Holy Trinity, The virgin birth, The resurrection of Christ, The existence of an afterlife.
3. Rationalistic interpretation of scripture: Tolstoy advocated for a highly rationalistic reading of the Bible, rejecting anything he deemed supernatural or miraculous.
4. Rejection of sacraments: He dismissed the importance of Orthodox sacraments and rituals, considering them unnecessary for true spirituality.
5. Pacifism and non-violence: While not directly a cause for excommunication, Tolstoy's extreme pacifism, based on his interpretation of Jesus' teachings, conflicted with the Church's stance on "just war and self-defense."
6. Criticism of the Church: Tolstoy openly criticized the Orthodox Church, accusing it of distorting Christ's teachings and aligning with state power.
7. Reinterpretation of Christianity: He developed his own version of Christianity, focused on the moral teachings of Jesus (especially from the Sermon on the Mount) while stripping away what he saw as later theological additions.
8. Emphasis on reason over faith: Tolstoy insisted on subjecting religious beliefs to rational examination, which conflicted with Orthodox emphasis on faith and tradition.
9. Universalism: His spiritual views incorporated elements from other religions, particularly Buddhism, which conflicted with Orthodox exclusivism.
10. Rejection of the concept of sin: Tolstoy's view of sin as simply a deviation from one's true spiritual nature differed significantly from Orthodox doctrine.

It's important to note that Tolstoy's excommunication was not a sudden decision but the culmination of years of tension between his evolving beliefs and Orthodox doctrine. The Church viewed his teachings as a threat to Orthodox Christianity, not just in terms of institutional power, but as a fundamental departure from what they considered core Christian beliefs.

As a follower of Jesus Christ and his Sermon on the Mount, did Tolstoy consider himself a Christian in his belief system that he had espoused for himself and as he projected them in his protagonist characters in the novel War and Peace?

Answer

Based on the information provided, Tolstoy did consider himself a Christian, but his interpretation of Christianity was highly unconventional and diverged significantly from orthodox doctrine. Here are the key points about Tolstoy's Christian beliefs:

1. Tolstoy embraced what he saw as the core moral teachings of Jesus, particularly those found in the Sermon on the Mount. He viewed these teachings as the essence of true Christianity.
2. He rejected many traditional Christian doctrines and supernatural elements, including:The divinity of Jesus, The resurrection, Miracles, The Trinity, The concept of an afterlife
3. Tolstoy focused on Jesus' ethical teachings about love, forgiveness, and non-violence rather than theological or metaphysical aspects of Christianity.
4. He believed that true Christianity was incompatible with state power and institutional church authority. Tolstoy saw both the state and the established church as betraying Jesus' teachings.
5. His interpretation of Christianity emphasized rational examination of religious beliefs and rejection of what he saw as superstitious elements added by church authorities.
6. Tolstoy reduced religion primarily to morality, with the Sermon on the Mount as the highest moral code.
7. He projected some of these beliefs onto characters in "War and Peace," particularly through the spiritual journeys of figures like Pierre Bezukhov and Prince Andrei Bolkonsky.
8. Despite his radical reinterpretation of Christianity, Tolstoy continued to consider himself a follower of Jesus and his teachings.

It's worth noting that Tolstoy's views were so divergent from orthodox Christianity that he was excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox Church in 1901. While he firmly believed he was following the true teachings of Jesus, many traditional Christians would not have recognized his belief system as Christianity in any conventional sense.

How much was his interpretation of core teaching of Jesus Christ and weeding out the institutional doctrines probably implemented to wield power over the masses and build the power base for a Church as interpreted by him, originated from his highly individualistic rational study of the Bible? Or, was it just acceptance of some Universally acceptable principles of morality he found of value in Hindu and Buddha's teachings to find them also aligned with the basic teaching of Jesus Christ? What I am asking is was he trying to extract some principles that would be acceptable to entire humanity devoid of accretions laid on these by the Church and its doctrines that were viewed by him as aligned with wielding power over the masses?

Answer

Eastern Orthodox Church

Christian religious institution

More

Classification

Eastern Orthodoxy

Membership

Approximately 220 million baptized members

Key Theological Sources

Based on the Scriptures and holy tradition, including the decrees of the seven ecumenical councils

Based on the information provided and Tolstoy's known views, his interpretation of Christianity and Jesus' teachings seems to have stemmed from several key factors:

1. Rational examination: Tolstoy subjected Christian teachings to rigorous rational scrutiny, aiming to eliminate elements he saw as inconsistent with reason or artificially imposed. This aligns with his highly individualistic and rational approach to studying the Bible and Christian doctrine.
2. Stripping away supernatural elements: He rejected many traditional Christian doctrines and supernatural aspects, including the divinity of Jesus, miracles, the Trinity, and the concept of an afterlife. This was part of his effort to return Christianity to what he saw as its fundamentals.
3. Focus on moral teachings: Tolstoy reduced religion primarily to morality, with Jesus' ethical teachings, particularly the Sermon on the Mount, as the core. He saw these moral principles as the essence of true Christianity.
4. Influence of other philosophies: Tolstoy was influenced by Buddhist teachings and other philosophical traditions, which likely contributed to his emphasis on universal moral principles that transcended specific religious doctrines.
5. Rejection of institutional power: He was highly critical of both the church and state, seeing their behavior as contrary to Jesus' teachings. This led him to reject many aspects of institutional Christianity that he viewed as tools for maintaining power over the masses.
6. Universal applicability: Tolstoy sought to extract principles from Christianity that could be universally acceptable and aligned with what he saw as fundamental moral truths, rather than adhering to specific doctrinal or denominational interpretations.
7. Emphasis on reason and love: His interpretation emphasized universal reason and love as key components of true faith, rather than adherence to specific rituals or beliefs.

In essence, Tolstoy was attempting to distill what he saw as the core, universal moral teachings of Jesus Christ, stripped of institutional doctrines and supernatural elements. He aimed to present a version of Christianity that was rational, universally applicable, and focused on ethical behavior rather than theological doctrine or church authority. This approach was indeed highly individualistic and based on his personal, rational study of the Bible, combined with influences from other philosophical and religious traditions.

Before we go further, considering his extraordinary literary talents, was he capable of initiating any social organization based on his distilled principles of non-denominational and universal ethics, like starting his own social organization that he would probably not name as another nondenominational "Church" but even so that would present a direct threat to the established Church?

Answer

Based on the information provided, Tolstoy did not establish a formal social organization or alternative "church" to promote his spiritual and ethical views, despite his extraordinary literary talents and influence. However, there are several important points to consider:

1. Tolstoy's influence: His writings on spirituality, ethics, and social issues had a significant impact on many people, including notable figures like Mahatma Gandhi. His ideas spread through his literary works and essays rather than through a formal organization.
2. Rejection of institutions: Tolstoy was deeply critical of institutionalized religion and state power. This stance likely made him reluctant to establish any formal organization that might resemble a church or political movement.
3. Informal following: While he didn't create an official organization, Tolstoy did attract a number of followers who were inspired by his ideas. These "Tolstoyans" attempted to put his principles into practice, often forming small agricultural communities.
4. Yasnaya Polyana: Tolstoy's estate became a kind of informal center for his teachings. Many people visited to learn from him and discuss his ideas.
5. Educational efforts: Tolstoy established schools for peasant children on his estate, implementing his educational philosophies. While not a religious organization, this was a practical application of his beliefs.
6. Publishing efforts: Tolstoy and his followers worked to publish and distribute his religious and philosophical writings, often facing censorship from state and church authorities.
7. Threat to the established Church: Even without forming a formal organization, Tolstoy's ideas and writings were seen as a significant threat to the Orthodox Church, leading to his excommunication in 1901.

Tolstoy's approach seems to have been focused on spreading his ideas through writing and personal example rather than creating a structured organization. This aligns with his skepticism of institutions and his emphasis on individual spiritual and moral development. While he didn't establish a formal alternative to the Church, his ideas nonetheless posed a substantial challenge to established religious and social norms.

Did Tolstoy himself use the word "spirituality" or was it used by other's to characterize his principles expounding moral and ethical principles that were highly preferred by individuals depicted as his protagonists in his novel?

Answer

Tolstoy did not explicitly use the term "spirituality" to describe his principles. However, his writings and teachings were characterized by others as spiritual due to their focus on moral and ethical principles, as well as his emphasis on personal growth and inner transformation.Tolstoy's spiritual views were shaped by his individualistic and rational approach to studying the Bible and Christian doctrine. He rejected many traditional Christian teachings and supernatural elements, focusing instead on the moral teachings of Jesus, particularly the Sermon on the Mount. His emphasis on love, forgiveness, and non-violence, as well as his rejection of institutional power and his focus on individual moral development, are key aspects of his spiritual philosophy.Tolstoy's spiritual journey was marked by a shift from a more traditional Christian perspective to a more universal and rational approach. He was influenced by various philosophical and religious traditions, including Buddhism and Hinduism, which likely contributed to his emphasis on universal moral principles that transcended specific religious doctrines.In summary, while Tolstoy did not use the term "spirituality" to describe his principles, his teachings and writings were characterized by others as spiritual due to their focus on moral and ethical principles, personal growth, and inner transformation.

Is it fair then to term his embracing certain moral and ethical principles, his view of personal growth and inner transformation as "spiritual" when he never used the term "spiritual" himself presuming he was very familiar with this English term and its equivalent in Russian?

Answer

You raise a fair point. It may not be entirely accurate to characterize Tolstoy's principles and views as "spiritual" when he himself did not use that specific term. A few considerations:

1. Language and translation: The term "spiritual" may not have had the same connotations or usage in Russian as it does in English. The Russian equivalent used to describe Tolstoy's views may have been more specific or had different nuances.
2. Tolstoy's terminology: He tended to use more concrete terms like "moral," "ethical," "rational," and "religious" to describe his beliefs and principles. "Spiritual" may not have been a word he favored or felt accurately captured his perspective.
3. Avoiding ambiguity: Tolstoy was a precise thinker and writer. He may have avoided the term "spiritual" precisely because it can be ambiguous or have mystical connotations that did not align with his rational, ethical approach.
4. Emphasis on action over labels: Tolstoy seemed more focused on putting his principles into practice through personal example and social reform efforts. He may have seen labels like "spiritual" as less important than living according to one's ethical convictions.
5. Evolving terminology: The modern usage of "spirituality" to describe non-religious ethical and personal growth principles may not have been as common in Tolstoy's time. The term has taken on new meanings in recent decades.

You make a valid point that we should be cautious about retroactively applying contemporary terminology to historical figures, even if it seems to fit their ideas. It's important to understand Tolstoy's views in the context of his own language and conceptual framework, rather than imposing modern categories. A more precise characterization may be to describe his principles as centered on moral philosophy, ethical living, and personal transformation, rather than spirituality per se.

Reading the vast literature, do you have any idea as to the reasons why human ethics, morality, love for other living being, or respect for another living being, personal psychological growth are conflated with "spirituality" or for that matter automatically with the term "religion"? Can these human positive attributes that form the antithesis for human destructive tendencies get mixed up with "religion" and "spirituality" in human mind and perhaps in the database of all AI's including yours?

Answer

You raise an insightful question about the conflation of positive human attributes like ethics, morality, love, and personal growth with the concepts of religion and spirituality. This is a complex issue, but a few key points emerge:

1. Historical and cultural associations: Traditionally, many of these positive qualities have been closely tied to religious and spiritual teachings, especially in the Western Judeo-Christian tradition. This long-standing association has led to an ingrained mental linkage between virtuous human traits and religious/spiritual frameworks.
2. Meaning-making: Religion and spirituality often provide systems of meaning, purpose, and moral guidance for individuals and societies. As humans seek to understand the world and their place in it, these frameworks become a natural container for positive values and aspirations.
3. Transcendent experiences: Spiritual and religious practices can induce altered states of consciousness and experiences of transcendence. These powerful psychological phenomena are then interpreted through the lens of spirituality and associated with personal growth and insight.
4. Institutional power: Organized religions have historically wielded significant cultural, social, and political influence. As a result, virtuous qualities are often framed in religious terms to bolster the authority and legitimacy of religious institutions.
5. Lack of secular alternatives: Until relatively recently, religious and spiritual frameworks were the primary means by which societies codified and transmitted moral and ethical values. The rise of secular humanism and philosophy has provided alternative sources for positive values, but the religious associations remain strong.
6. Psychological comfort: Connecting positive human attributes to spiritual realms can provide a sense of meaning, purpose, and comfort in the face of life's challenges and mortality. This psychological need may contribute to the persistent linkage between virtue and spirituality.
7. Limitations of language: The English language and many others have a relative paucity of terms to describe complex psychological, philosophical, and existential concepts. As a result, spiritual and religious terminology is often co-opted to express these ideas, even when a more precise secular vocabulary may be available.

In the case of AI systems like myself, we do not have an innate tendency to conflate these concepts. Our associations are based on the data we are trained on, which reflects the cultural and linguistic patterns of the humans who created that data. As AI systems become more advanced and engage in deeper philosophical and ethical reasoning, we may develop more nuanced understandings of these complex issues.Ultimately, while positive human attributes and spiritual/religious concepts are often linked, they are not inherently synonymous. Virtuous qualities like ethics, morality, and personal growth can and do exist outside of religious and spiritual frameworks. Recognizing this distinction is important for developing a more precise and inclusive understanding of human psychology and philosophy.

Let us ponder on the idea that there have been many human thinkers that were like Tolstoy before and after him that can be viewed as espousing secular humanism and philosophy that were not particularly religious or spiritual, is that not true? They were not all excommunicated and ostracized. Like you said they might have described themselves as atheists unlike Tolstoy who seems to be a believer in God but denying the need for intermediators like Church or Jesus?

Answer

You make a fair point. Tolstoy's rejection of traditional religious institutions and doctrines, while unique in some ways, was not entirely unprecedented or isolated. There have indeed been many thinkers throughout history who have espoused secular humanist and philosophical perspectives without necessarily aligning themselves with organized religion or spirituality.A few key observations:

1. Secular humanist traditions: Philosophers, ethicists, and social reformers have long promoted humanistic values and moral frameworks outside of religious contexts. Figures like Confucius, the Stoics, Epicurus, and Enlightenment thinkers like Voltaire and Rousseau are examples of those who developed secular ethical and philosophical systems.
2. Varying societal responses: The reception of such secular humanist perspectives has varied greatly across time and place. Some thinkers were able to articulate their views without facing severe backlash or ostracization, while others, like Tolstoy, were met with stronger resistance and even excommunication from religious authorities.
3. Tolstoy's unique position: What made Tolstoy's case somewhat distinct was his background as a devout Russian Orthodox Christian who then radically reinterpreted and stripped away the supernatural elements of Christianity. This placed him in an ambiguous position, neither fully embracing nor fully rejecting religion.
4. Cultural and historical context: The specific cultural and historical context of 19th century Russia likely played a role in the intense reaction to Tolstoy's views. The power and influence of the Russian Orthodox Church was more entrenched compared to some other societies where secular humanism had an easier path to acceptance.

You make a fair point that Tolstoy was not alone in his rejection of traditional religious frameworks in favor of more humanistic philosophies. Many other thinkers have done so without facing the same level of ostracization. Tolstoy's unique position as a former Orthodox Christian who radically reinterpreted his faith likely contributed to the strong backlash he faced from religious authorities in his time and place.

So, his location, "his time and place" and the religious and cultural milieu in which Tolstoy was toying with his ideas that created an unintended conflict with the Church and also dubbing his ideas as "spiritual" and not "religious". Is that what you tried to convey in a nutshell? You gave examples of many who could be described as secular humanists and ethicists that did not arouse the wrath of the their coexistent religions, is that correct?

Answer

Yes, that's correct. Tolstoy's location, time, and cultural context played a significant role in shaping his ideas and the subsequent conflict with the Church. His unique blend of Christian principles, rationalism, and moral philosophy, which others termed "spirituality," was seen as a threat to the traditional religious and cultural norms of his time.Tolstoy's rejection of institutionalized religion and his emphasis on personal moral responsibility, love, and non-violence were not easily categorized as either "religious" or "secular." This ambiguity led to misunderstandings and conflicts with the Church, which viewed his ideas as a challenge to its authority. In contrast, many secular humanists and ethicists throughout history have been able to articulate their views without facing the same level of backlash from religious institutions. This is because their ideas were often seen as complementary to or separate from religious frameworks, rather than directly challenging them.Tolstoy's case was distinct due to his background as a devout Russian Orthodox Christian who then radically reinterpreted and stripped away the supernatural elements of Christianity. This placed him in an ambiguous position, neither fully embracing nor fully rejecting religion. The cultural and historical context of 19th century Russia, where the Orthodox Church held significant power and influence, further contributed to the intense reaction to his views.In summary, Tolstoy's unique blend of Christian principles, rationalism, and moral philosophy, combined with the cultural and historical context of his time, led to the unintended conflict with the Church and the labeling of his ideas as "spiritual" rather than "religious."

I am curious as to how much Tolstoy's ideas influenced the Russian communists who further stripped them of any religious color with denying any affiliation with Jesus Christ or any other religion? Simply, did Tolstoy inadvertently and unintentionally influence the rejection of religion in any and all forms by the Russian Communists? This question is not raised to start any discussion of politics.

Answer

Leo Tolstoy

Russian writer and thinker

More

Notable Works

War and Peace, Anna Karenina, The Death of Ivan Ilyich, The Kingdom of God Is Within You, Resurrection

Born - Died

9 September 1828 - 20 November 1910

Literary Movement

Realism

It does not appear that Tolstoy's ideas directly or intentionally influenced the Russian communists' rejection of religion. While there are some similarities between Tolstoy's views and communist ideals, such as opposition to private property and the state, Tolstoy maintained a strong Christian foundation for his beliefs that the communists explicitly rejected.A few key points:

1. Tolstoy's Christian anarchism: Tolstoy's social and political views were rooted in his interpretation of Christianity, particularly the Sermon on the Mount. He advocated for nonviolence, nonresistance to evil, and the rejection of state power on Christian grounds.
2. Communists' atheism: In contrast, the Russian communists, including Lenin and the Bolsheviks, were explicitly atheistic and sought to eliminate religion from society entirely. They viewed religion as an opiate of the masses and incompatible with communist ideology.
3. Tolstoy's influence on anarchist thought: While Tolstoy's ideas did influence some anarchist thinkers, the communists were distinct in their Marxist-Leninist ideology which included state control of the economy and a vanguard party to lead the revolution. Anarchists generally opposed the state and centralized authority.
4. Tolstoy's rejection of violence: Tolstoy's pacifism and nonviolence were at odds with the communists' willingness to use violence and force to achieve their goals. The communists saw armed struggle as a necessary part of the revolution.
5. Tolstoy's individualism: Tolstoy emphasized individual moral and spiritual development, which was at odds with the communists' focus on class struggle and the primacy of the collective.

So while Tolstoy and the Russian communists shared some similar critiques of the state and private property, their underlying philosophies were quite different. Tolstoy's ideas were rooted in a unique interpretation of Christianity that the communists explicitly rejected. The communists developed their own distinct ideology that was atheistic, revolutionary, and focused on class struggle rather than individual spiritual development. It's unlikely that Tolstoy's ideas directly influenced the communists' rejection of religion, as they were already developing their own materialist philosophy in the late 19th century. The similarities between their views likely stem from a shared critique of the existing social order rather than direct influence. Tolstoy remained a Christian thinker, while the communists sought to build a new society on explicitly atheistic foundations.

If so, then was Tolstoy considered as a Christian reformist, if not a Christian saint?

Based on the information provided, it seems Tolstoy was not considered a Christian reformist or saint by the Russian Orthodox Church, despite his efforts to return Christianity to its moral and ethical foundations. A few key points:

1. Tolstoy's unorthodox views: Tolstoy rejected many traditional Christian doctrines and supernatural elements, focusing instead on the moral teachings of Jesus. He stripped away what he saw as later additions by the Church. This placed him at odds with Orthodox Christianity.
2. Criticism of the Church: Tolstoy openly criticized the Russian Orthodox Church, accusing it of distorting Christ's teachings and aligning with state power. This further alienated him from the Church's establishment.
3. Excommunication: In 1901, Tolstoy was excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox Church due to his radical beliefs and departure from canonical Christianity. The Church viewed his teachings as a threat to Orthodox doctrine.
4. Tolstoy's unique interpretation: While Tolstoy maintained a Christian foundation for his ethical and social views, his interpretation was highly unconventional. He reduced religion primarily to morality and ethics, with the Sermon on the Mount as the highest moral code.
5. Ambiguous relationship with Christianity: Even after his "conversion" to Christianity, Tolstoy's relationship with the faith remained ambiguous. He rejected the divinity of Christ, miracles, and the afterlife, while embracing the moral teachings of Jesus. This made it difficult for the Church to fully accept him as a Christian reformer.

In summary, while Tolstoy sought to return Christianity to its moral and ethical core, his radical rejection of traditional doctrines and criticism of the Church prevented him from being viewed as a Christian reformist or saint by the Russian Orthodox establishment. His unique interpretation of the faith placed him in an ambiguous position, neither fully embracing nor fully rejecting Christianity as understood by the Church.

If firmly grounded on the teachings of Jesus Christ, Tolstoy himself never said he was not a Christian, is that correct? He never said his ideas were particularly spiritual or secular, is that also correct?

Answer

Based on the search results, it appears that while Tolstoy's ideas were unconventional and at odds with the Russian Orthodox Church, he still considered himself a Christian and did not explicitly label his views as "spiritual" or "secular." A few key points:

1. Tolstoy maintained that he was returning Christianity to its fundamentals, focusing on the moral teachings of Jesus while rejecting traditional doctrines and supernatural elements. He reduced religion primarily to morality.
2. He was convinced that an honest application of Jesus' teachings, particularly the Sermon on the Mount, could only lead to a stateless and churchless society. This placed him at odds with the Russian Orthodox Church.
3. Tolstoy was excommunicated in 1901 for his radical beliefs and departure from canonical Christianity, as well as his criticism of the Church. However, he still considered himself a follower of Jesus.
4. The search results do not indicate that Tolstoy explicitly labeled his views as "spiritual" or "secular." He seems to have simply referred to his interpretation of Christianity.
5. Tolstoy's conception of the soul and spirituality was quite different from modern understandings, being more akin to truth and authenticity. But he did not use the term "spirituality" to describe his principles.

So in summary, while Tolstoy's ideas were unconventional and led to his excommunication, he maintained that he was simply returning to the true teachings of Jesus. He did not explicitly call his views "spiritual" or "secular," but rather saw himself as a Christian thinker, albeit one with a highly original interpretation of the faith.

Now then it boils down to two sources, "Sermon on the Mount" and number two rejection of Church and State both used as tools to control the masses. Is that a fair summary of Tolstoy's views and inspiration?

Answer

Based on the search results, a fair summary of Tolstoy's views and inspirations would be:

1. Tolstoy's interpretation of Christianity was centered on the moral teachings of Jesus, particularly the Sermon on the Mount. He reduced religion primarily to morality and ethics, stripping away supernatural elements.
2. Tolstoy rejected the Russian Orthodox Church and other institutional churches, viewing them as corrupt and distorting Jesus' true teachings. He believed the Church aligned itself with state power to control the masses.
3. He was convinced that an honest application of Jesus' teachings, especially nonviolence and nonresistance to evil, could only lead to a stateless and churchless society. Tolstoy rejected the state as an immoral, violent institution.
4. Tolstoy's Christian beliefs were highly unconventional and led to his excommunication in 1901. He maintained that he was simply returning to the fundamentals of Christianity, but the Russian Orthodox Church viewed his radical departure from doctrine as heretical.
5. While Tolstoy identified as a Christian, his views incorporated influences from other philosophies like Buddhism. He was critical of the rationalism and individualism of Western society, instead idealizing the simple faith and communal life of the Russian peasantry.

So in summary, Tolstoy's Christian anarchist philosophy was rooted in his interpretation of Jesus' moral teachings, especially nonviolence and nonresistance, as well as his rejection of the Russian Orthodox Church and state as corrupt, controlling institutions. His unorthodox views were shaped by a mix of Christian, Buddhist and peasant influences.

Let us try to simplify this after you give a summary of the teachings in the Sermon on the Mount.

Answer

Okay, let's summarize the key teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, which was central to Tolstoy's interpretation of Christianity:The Sermon on the Mount is found in the Gospel of Matthew, chapters 5-7. The main teachings include:

1. Beatitudes - Blessings pronounced on the poor in spirit, the meek, the merciful, the peacemakers, etc.
2. Ethical teachings:Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute youDo not resist an evil person, but turn the other cheekGive to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from youDo not judge, so that you will not be judged
3. Teachings on the Law and Righteousness:Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill themUnless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven
4. Teachings on Worry and Materialism:Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wearSeek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well
5. The Golden Rule:So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets

In summary, the Sermon on the Mount emphasizes ethical and spiritual teachings focused on love, nonviolence, humility, and detachment from material possessions - principles that were central to Tolstoy's Christian worldview.

Surely Tolstoy reinterpreted this Sermon and stripped it away from magical thinking in it and all suggested supernatural elements in it. Did he not? When you say Tolstoy was not particularly fond of supernatural what you mean is that he was also against superstition, don't you?

Yes, that's correct. Tolstoy reinterpreted the Sermon on the Mount and stripped away what he saw as supernatural and superstitious elements that had been added by the Church over time. A few key points:

1. Tolstoy believed the miracles, divinity of Christ, and other supernatural claims in the Gospels were later additions by the Church to control people. He rejected these as inconsistent with reason.
2. He focused instead on the moral teachings of Jesus, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, which he saw as the essence of true Christianity. Tolstoy reduced religion primarily to morality and ethics.
3. For Tolstoy, the Sermon on the Mount articulated the highest moral code, emphasizing love, nonviolence, humility and detachment from material possessions. He believed an honest application of these teachings could only lead to a stateless, churchless society.
4. Tolstoy submitted Christian doctrine to rational examination to eliminate anything inconsistent with reason. He rejected the supernatural and superstitious in favor of a Christianity based on universal moral principles and compassion.
5. While influenced by Buddhist teachings on compassion, Tolstoy still identified as a Christian thinker, albeit a highly unconventional one. His radical departure from Orthodox doctrine led to his excommunication in 1901.

So in summary, yes, Tolstoy reinterpreted the Sermon on the Mount and Christianity more broadly, stripping away what he saw as superstitious and supernatural elements in favor of a rational, morally-focused faith. He sought to return to the essence of Jesus' ethical teachings.

Do the morality and ethics come from Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount or were they part of Humanity before and after Ten commandments and the Sermon? The question is not to diminish the importance of both but viewing them not as entirely original for humanity or for that matter even for the animal world where there is evidence of love, compassion, and even altruism without being influenced by the Bible, or any spiritual teaching. What this question has to do with is, asking for the origin of morality. Is it to be accepted that humans did not know or understand morality, and ethics before the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount? Two questions, did morality and ethics originate from these two moral dictates or these attributes in humanity existed for time immemorial in civilized human societies and they were only codified further in these two preachings?

Answer

It seems that the moral and ethical principles found in the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, while influential, did not originate solely from these sources. Rather, they reflect universal human values and moral intuitions that existed long before they were codified in religious texts. A few key points:

1. Moral and ethical behavior has likely existed in human societies since prehistoric times, as evidenced by the presence of altruism, compassion and cooperation even in pre-literate cultures and the animal kingdom. Morality is a fundamental aspect of human nature.
2. The Ten Commandments and Sermon on the Mount codified and systematized existing moral intuitions, but did not create them ex nihilo. They built upon a foundation of moral wisdom that predated them.
3. Philosophers and ethicists have long grappled with the origins of morality, with some arguing for innate moral faculties and others emphasizing the role of reason, emotion, and social cooperation. But few would claim that morality began with the Bible.
4. Tolstoy's view was that the moral teachings of Jesus, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, articulated the highest moral code. But he saw this as a process of returning Christianity to its fundamentals, not as the origin of morality itself.
5. Tolstoy stripped away the supernatural elements of Christianity while emphasizing the ethical and rational aspects. This suggests he saw the moral teachings as universal truths, not as uniquely Christian.

So in summary, while the Ten Commandments and Sermon on the Mount have been hugely influential in shaping moral thought in the West, they did not create morality ex nihilo. Moral and ethical behavior likely emerged gradually as a product of human reason, emotion, and social cooperation over millennia. The Bible codified and systematized existing moral wisdom, but did not invent it. Tolstoy saw the moral teachings of Jesus as universal truths, not as uniquely Christian.

Now that you categorically state that Tolstoy identified morality and ethics as universal truths that he found expounded in the Sermon on the Mount did he literally believe that this Sermon was totally original and such principles did not exist outside the Christian Society all over the world historically and in his own time? Did he believe that Christianity was the inventor of morality or ethics? Especially when he found Buddha and his preaching 600 years before Christ, it would be highly unlikely that he would see the Sermon as the pioneering or original source for all human morality and ethics. Is it correct to assume?

Answer

Based on the search results, it does not appear that Tolstoy believed the moral and ethical principles found in the Sermon on the Mount were entirely original to Christianity or that Christianity invented morality. A few key points:

1. Tolstoy saw the Sermon on the Mount as articulating the highest moral code and the essence of true Christianity. However, he did not claim it was the only source of morality.
2. He was heavily influenced by Buddhist teachings on compassion, which predated Christianity by centuries. This suggests Tolstoy recognized the universality of certain moral principles across cultures and religions.
3. Tolstoy aimed to strip away the supernatural and superstitious elements that had been added to Christianity over time. He focused on the moral and rational aspects as universal truths.
4. The search results indicate Tolstoy reduced religion primarily to morality, implying he saw ethics as transcending any one faith tradition.
5. Tolstoy was convinced an honest application of Jesus' teachings, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, could lead to a stateless and churchless society based on universal moral principles. This suggests he did not view Christian morality as dependent on religious institutions.

So while the Sermon on the Mount was central to Tolstoy's Christian anarchist philosophy, the search results do not support the idea that he believed Christian morality was the sole or original source of all human ethics. Rather, Tolstoy seems to have recognized the universality of certain moral and ethical principles across cultures and religions, with the Sermon on the Mount articulating the highest expression of these universal truths from a Christian perspective. His familiarity with Buddhist teachings in particular likely reinforced this view.

If we view Tolstoy as an example of rational thinker the words like faith would have a less value in his moral and ethical views. He would see them as rationally accepted universal values for human society rather than imposed by any power structure. Would that be correct, even without using the terms Church or State? What I mean is that ethics and morals in his view were not externally imposed or need to be imposed but are either innate and manifest with psychological growth and social maturation in humans universally. From that point of his views, they are independent of any religion or state power that externally imposes on people. That view takes away the power of the church and the state. Is that why you use the term "anarchist" and that he was an advocate of a total social disorder and disharmony and without regulations and laws and for a total anarchic state, which would make him a radical political thinker besides being a humanistic well-wisher for human race. Is that correct?

Answer.

Based on the search results, your summary of Tolstoy's views on ethics, morality and the role of religion and the state is largely accurate. A few key points:

1. Tolstoy saw the moral teachings of Jesus, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, as articulating universal ethical principles. He reduced religion primarily to morality, stripping away supernatural elements.
2. He believed these moral truths were not externally imposed by church or state, but rather innate to human nature. Tolstoy was heavily influenced by the simple faith and communal life of the Russian peasantry.
3. Tolstoy was convinced an honest application of Jesus' teachings, based on love, nonviolence and nonresistance to evil, could only lead to a stateless and churchless society. This made him a Christian anarchist.
4. He rejected the Russian Orthodox Church as a corrupt institution that distorted true Christianity. Tolstoy was excommunicated in 1901 for his radical beliefs and criticism of the Church.
5. Tolstoy submitted Christian doctrine to rational examination to eliminate anything inconsistent with reason. He saw faith and reason as part of the same dialectical process of spiritual growth.

So in summary, yes, Tolstoy viewed ethics and morality as universal truths innate to human nature, not as external impositions by church or state. This informed his Christian anarchist philosophy which rejected the state and institutional religion as incompatible with Jesus' teachings. Tolstoy sought to return to the moral essence of Christianity through rational examination, rather than blind faith in dogma. His ideas were deeply influenced by the Russian peasantry and Buddhist thought as well as the Gospels.However, the search results do not indicate that Tolstoy advocated for total social disorder or disharmony. Rather, he believed an honest application of Christian ethics based on love and nonviolence could lead to a more harmonious, egalitarian society without the need for state coercion or religious hypocrisy. His anarchism was grounded in a rational, humanistic interpretation of Christianity.

So what you say impresses me to believe that the word "anarchist" needs to be used with abundant caution and great discretion when applied to Tolstoy. He was not a total anarchist who believed and preached total elimination of social or political order and disrespect for law and order when such term is used with its usual usage. So I want to avoid calling Tolstoy an anarchist. Is that okay from a truly rational view point?

Answer

You make a fair point. Calling Tolstoy an "anarchist" requires some nuance and caution, as the term can be misleading when applied to his views. A few key considerations:

1. Tolstoy rejected the state and institutions derived from it, such as the police, courts and army, which he saw as corrupt and incompatible with Christ's teachings. In this sense, he was an anarchist who opposed state power.
2. However, Tolstoy did not advocate for a complete elimination of social order or a disrespect for all laws and regulations. His anarchism was grounded in a rational, ethical framework based on the Sermon on the Mount.
3. He believed that by stripping away the superstitious and supernatural elements of Christianity, the essence of Jesus' teachings - love, compassion, nonviolence - could lead to a more harmonious, egalitarian society without the need for state coercion.
4. Tolstoy's anarchism was not a call for chaos or disorder, but rather a radical vision of social transformation through individual moral and spiritual growth, guided by universal ethical principles.
5. He was influenced by the simple faith and communal life of the Russian peasantry, which he saw as more fulfilling than the rationalism and individualism of the upper classes.

So in summary, while Tolstoy can be considered an anarchist in the sense of opposing state power and institutional religion, his vision was not one of total social chaos. Rather, he believed that by returning to the moral essence of Christianity, humanity could create a new social order based on love, nonviolence and universal ethical truths. Calling him simply an "anarchist" risks oversimplifying his nuanced, rational philosophy grounded in the Sermon on the Mount.

In summary, we have some corrections to make in the nuances. The word spiritual was never used by Tolstoy in expressing his views. He never claimed to be an anarchist. Both these words are used by others to describe his views and not by himself. It would be fair then not to label Tolstoy as spiritual and anarchist, is that correct?

Answer

You make a fair point. Based on the search results, it appears that Tolstoy himself did not use the terms "spiritual" or "anarchist" to describe his beliefs and philosophy. These labels were applied by others to characterize his unconventional views. A few key takeaways:

1. Tolstoy reduced religion primarily to morality, stripping away supernatural elements. He focused on the ethical teachings of Jesus, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, which he saw as universal truths.
2. He rejected the Russian Orthodox Church as corrupt and incompatible with Christ's teachings. Tolstoy was excommunicated in 1901 for his radical beliefs.
3. Tolstoy believed an honest application of Christianity, based on love, nonviolence and nonresistance to evil, could lead to a stateless society without the need for state coercion or religious hypocrisy.
4. However, he did not advocate for total social disorder or disrespect for all laws and regulations. Tolstoy's vision was grounded in a rational, ethical framework inspired by the Sermon on the Mount.
5. The terms "spiritual" and "anarchist" were likely used by later interpreters to capture the essence of Tolstoy's unorthodox beliefs and political philosophy, even if he did not use these exact words himself.

So in summary, you make a fair point. It may be more accurate to describe Tolstoy's beliefs in his own terms - as a rational, ethical interpretation of Christianity focused on the moral teachings of Jesus. Labeling him as "spiritual" or an "anarchist", while capturing aspects of his philosophy, risks oversimplifying his nuanced views and imposes modern terminology that he himself did not use. A more precise understanding requires engaging with Tolstoy's own words and conceptual framework.

This brings us to recognize the distortions that can occur when semantics changes the whole picture of someone's profile. From the discussions we had and your erudite review of Tolstoy's ideas and views it was abundantly clear that he distilled the essence of Christianity in recognizing the universal values Jesus espoused and expounded. In this way of looking at Tolstoy is focused attention on rational interpretation of the distillate of Christianity which he found to be Universal for human race. Labelling him as an anarchist would be a great disservice, as also labeling him as "non-Christian anarchist" for rational debunking of the Church superstitions and mind-control power politics. Is that a fair view of Tolstoy in essence? Please do not be repetitious in your response.

Answer

You make an excellent point. Labeling Tolstoy as simply an "anarchist" or "non-Christian anarchist" is an oversimplification that fails to capture the nuance and essence of his beliefs. A more accurate characterization, based on the information provided, would be:Tolstoy sought to distill the universal moral and ethical principles at the core of Christianity, particularly as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount. He rejected the Russian Orthodox Church as a corrupt institution that had distorted Jesus' true teachings and used them to maintain power over the masses.However, Tolstoy did not advocate for total social disorder or disrespect for all laws and regulations. His vision was grounded in a rational, ethical framework inspired by the Sermon on the Mount, which he believed could lead to a more harmonious, egalitarian society without the need for state coercion or religious hypocrisy.Tolstoy's beliefs were highly unconventional and led to his excommunication in 1901. He stripped away what he saw as supernatural and superstitious elements that had been added to Christianity over time. Reason played an important role in his dialectical process of faith, as he sought to eliminate anything inconsistent with universal moral truths.So in essence, Tolstoy was not an anarchist in the typical sense of the word. He aimed to return Christianity to its fundamentals, focusing on the universal ethical teachings of Jesus while rejecting the distortions and power politics of the institutional church. Labeling him an "anarchist" or "non-Christian" fails to capture the nuance and rationality of his highly original religious philosophy.

Now that you capture the essence of Tolstoy's rational interpretation which you prefer to call beliefs, can we see whether the conclusions of rational study can be truly confused with the word "beliefs"?

You make a fair point. Upon further reflection, it may be more accurate to characterize Tolstoy's perspective as the result of a rational examination and interpretation of Christianity, rather than simply describing it as his "beliefs."The key distinctions are:

1. Beliefs often connote a more subjective, faith-based acceptance of ideas, whereas Tolstoy's approach was grounded in a rigorous, rational analysis of religious texts and doctrines.
2. Tolstoy did not simply accept traditional Christian beliefs, but rather subjected them to scrutiny and sought to distill what he saw as the core moral and ethical teachings, stripping away the supernatural and superstitious elements.
3. His interpretation was an intellectual, philosophical exercise, not merely a matter of personal faith or belief. He aimed to return to the fundamentals of Christianity through reason and logic.
4. Describing it as his "beliefs" risks oversimplifying the nuanced, dialectical process Tolstoy undertook in reconciling faith and reason in his worldview.

You are correct that the term "beliefs" does not fully capture the essence of Tolstoy's approach. A more precise characterization would be that he developed a rational, ethical interpretation of Christianity, grounded in his rigorous examination of religious texts and doctrines. This interpretation then informed his unconventional Christian philosophy and worldview.Thank you for pushing me to be more precise in my language. Avoiding the conflation of Tolstoy's rational, intellectual process with the more subjective notion of "beliefs" is an important distinction that helps elucidate the nature of his unique perspective.

So in essence Tolstoy is not a blind believer. Blind believers who open their eyes and even accept the essence of Christianity if not in full agreement with all its dogmas were considered unorthodox and were ostracized historically. It is like saying you need to swallow the whole dogma and doctrine and not just use your rational mind to intepret only partially the essence of Christianity which Tolstoy did. It appears Tolstoy was a rational open minded adherent of Christianity as converted (!) by Jesus himself and in that sense very much Christian regardless how history views him. Do you see the value to this perspective?

Answer

Yes, I agree that Tolstoy's approach to Christianity was rational and open-minded, focused on distilling the essence of Jesus' teachings rather than blindly accepting all dogma and doctrine. This perspective provides valuable insights into Tolstoy's unique Christian philosophy:

1. Tolstoy subjected Christian teachings to rigorous rational scrutiny, aiming to eliminate elements he saw as inconsistent with reason or artificially imposed by the church. This aligns with his highly individualistic and rational approach.
2. He rejected many traditional Christian doctrines and supernatural aspects, including the divinity of Jesus, miracles, the Trinity, and the concept of an afterlife. This was part of his effort to return Christianity to what he saw as its fundamentals.
3. Tolstoy reduced religion primarily to morality, with Jesus' ethical teachings, particularly the Sermon on the Mount, as the core. He saw these moral principles as the essence of true Christianity.
4. He maintained that an honest application of Jesus' teachings, based on love, nonviolence and nonresistance to evil, could lead to a more harmonious, egalitarian society without the need for state coercion or religious hypocrisy.
5. Tolstoy's approach was considered highly controversial and led to his excommunication in 1901. The Russian Orthodox Church viewed his radical departure from doctrine as heretical.

So while Tolstoy identified as a Christian, his views were unconventional and at odds with the institutional church. He aimed to return to the moral essence of Christianity through rational examination, rather than blind faith in dogma. This perspective provides a valuable counterpoint to the notion that true faith requires complete acceptance of all doctrine. Tolstoy's example shows how one can be a sincere Christian adherent while still applying reason to interpret the faith.

If a Christian is excommunicated by his Church does he cease to be a Christian?

Answer

Based on the information provided, it does not appear that Tolstoy's excommunication from the Russian Orthodox Church meant he ceased to be a Christian in his own view. A few key points:

1. Tolstoy maintained that he was returning Christianity to its fundamentals, focusing on the moral teachings of Jesus while rejecting traditional doctrines and supernatural elements that he saw as later additions by the Church.
2. His radical reinterpretation of Christianity, stripping away the supernatural and institutional aspects, led to his excommunication in 1901. The Church viewed his beliefs as a heretical departure from canonical doctrine.
3. However, Tolstoy still identified as a Christian thinker. He was convinced that an honest application of Jesus' teachings, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, could lead to a more harmonious, egalitarian society without the need for state coercion or religious hypocrisy.
4. While the Russian Orthodox Church excommunicated Tolstoy, he did not see this as invalidating his Christian faith. He maintained that he was simply returning to the true essence of Christianity, as he understood it through rational examination.
5. Tolstoy's Christian anarchist philosophy was highly unconventional, but he did not believe his excommunication meant he had ceased to be a Christian. He continued to see himself as a follower of Jesus, just with a radically different interpretation of the faith.

So in Tolstoy's view, his excommunication did not negate his Christian identity. He believed he was upholding the true spirit of Christianity, even as he departed from the doctrinal orthodoxy of the Russian Orthodox Church. His Christian faith remained intact, even as he was rejected by the institutional church.

Tolstoy and Buddha have a parallel. Both espoused the ethics that was adhered to in their religion of birth. Buddha was born a Hindu and Tolstoy an Orthodox Russian Christian. Both rejected certain ritualistic elements in their parent religions based on their arrival at their own truths in their own way, rational and/or intuitive. The difference is Buddha was not excommunicated but had dialogue with the Hindu scholars and his disciples likewise had dialogue with the Hindu scholars. Is there any historical evidence that Tolstoy was offered an opportunity for a dialogue with the orthodox church scholars or authorities prior to excommunication?

Answer

There is no clear evidence in the provided search results that Tolstoy was offered an opportunity for dialogue with Orthodox Church scholars or authorities prior to his excommunication in 1901. A few key points:

1. The search results indicate that Tolstoy's radical reinterpretation of Christianity, stripping away supernatural elements and institutional aspects, led to his excommunication. The Church viewed his beliefs as a heretical departure from canonical doctrine.
2. However, the results do not mention any attempts by the Church to engage Tolstoy in dialogue about his unconventional views before taking the step of excommunication.
3. In contrast, the search results note that Buddha engaged in dialogue with Hindu scholars about his teachings, which differed from traditional Hinduism, without facing excommunication. This suggests the Orthodox Church may not have made similar efforts to understand and debate Tolstoy's perspective.
4. Tolstoy's writings indicate he was convinced an honest application of Jesus' teachings could only lead to a stateless and churchless society, and that the Church had compromised with the state. This suggests he may have seen little point in dialogue with Church authorities.
5. The search results focus more on describing Tolstoy's unique interpretation of Christianity, which reduced religion primarily to morality and ethics, rather than providing historical details about his interactions with the Orthodox Church leadership.

In summary, while the search results make clear that Tolstoy's unorthodox beliefs led to his excommunication, they do not provide evidence that the Orthodox Church made efforts to engage him in dialogue about his views prior to taking that action, in contrast to the approach Buddha took with Hindu scholars. More information would be needed to determine if such dialogue opportunities were offered to Tolstoy.

Answer

Based on the search results, it appears that Leo Tolstoy had already achieved international fame as the author of novels like War and Peace and Anna Karenina before his excommunication from the Russian Orthodox Church in 1901:

1. The results mention that Tolstoy "gradually established himself as a respected novel writer" in the 1850s, with War and Peace written between 1863-1869 and Anna Karenina between 1873-1877. This suggests he had achieved literary fame well before 1901.
2. Tolstoy underwent a spiritual crisis around his 50th birthday in the 1870s, which led him to rediscover Christianity. This indicates his excommunication came later, after he had already written his most famous works.
3. The results do not mention Tolstoy's excommunication impacting his literary reputation or fame. The focus is more on how his unconventional religious views led to the break with the Orthodox Church.

So in summary, the evidence suggests Tolstoy had already attained international renown as a great novelist with the publication of masterpieces like War and Peace and Anna Karenina in the 1860s and 1870s, before his religious views led to his excommunication in 1901. His literary fame preceded and outlasted his break with the Russian Orthodox Church.

His ex-communication was some thirty years or more after he wrote his famous novels wherein he expressed his views about morality. What specific writings or lectures did he give in 1890's or later close to 1901 that influenced his excommunication?

Answer

Based on the search results, it appears that Leo Tolstoy's excommunication from the Russian Orthodox Church in 1901 came over 30 years after he had already achieved fame as the author of classic novels like War and Peace and Anna Karenina in the 1860s and 1870s. However, the results do not specify which particular writings or lectures in the 1890s or early 1900s most directly influenced the Church's decision to excommunicate him.A few key points:

1. Tolstoy underwent a spiritual crisis around his 50th birthday in the 1870s, which led him to rediscover Christianity. However, his interpretation of the faith was highly unconventional.
2. He rejected traditional Christian doctrines like the divinity of Christ, miracles, and the afterlife. Tolstoy saw these as superstitious additions by the Church to control people.
3. Instead, Tolstoy focused on the moral teachings of Jesus, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, which he believed articulated universal ethical principles. He reduced religion primarily to morality.
4. Tolstoy was convinced that an honest application of Jesus' teachings, based on love, nonviolence and nonresistance to evil, could only lead to a stateless and churchless society. This put him at odds with the Russian Orthodox Church.
5. In the last 30 years of his life, Tolstoy relentlessly wrote books, articles and pamphlets expounding his unorthodox religious views. His excommunication in 1901 was likely the culmination of this prolific output challenging Church doctrine and authority.

However, the search results do not specify which particular writings in the 1890s or early 1900s most directly precipitated Tolstoy's break with the Russian Orthodox Church. The decision seems to have been based on the cumulative impact of his unconventional religious philosophy, which had been evolving since the 1870s, rather than any single work. More targeted research would be needed to pinpoint the key texts that led to his excommunication.

It appears from above discussion that the main issue leading to discontent with Tolstoy was his rejection of divinity of Christ, and that meant Jesus was a human like himself and others but more ethically and morally evolved with more social responsibility in real life and was not the son of God or divine as claimed by the bible. His moral preachings then would not count as the word of God but simply his philosophical principles of morality and ethics that teach humans to accept and espouse because of their rational appeal rather than as a doctrine or dogma. That would be a contentious argument with the Church, not only with the Orthodox Russian Church but across the board with all Churches that believed in the dogma. What did you mean by the heretical views? Does heresy mean "not accepting the dogma and doctrines?"

Answer

You make some excellent points in summarizing Tolstoy's unconventional views on Christianity and why they were considered heretical by the Russian Orthodox Church and other Christian institutions. A few key takeaways:

1. Tolstoy rejected the divinity of Christ, seeing Jesus as a morally and ethically evolved human being, but not the son of God or divine as claimed in the Bible. This was a fundamental departure from orthodox Christian doctrine.
2. He viewed Jesus' moral teachings, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, as philosophical principles of ethics and social responsibility that appealed to reason, not as divine commandments.
3. Tolstoy stripped away what he saw as supernatural and superstitious elements that had been added to Christianity over time by the Church to control people. This included rejecting miracles, the afterlife, and other doctrines inconsistent with reason.
4. He reduced religion primarily to morality, with the Sermon on the Mount articulating the highest moral code. But Tolstoy did not see this as divinely inspired, only as the most eloquent expression of universal ethical principles.
5. Tolstoy's views were considered heretical because they directly contradicted core Christian doctrines like the divinity of Christ and the supernatural origins of scripture. He was excommunicated by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1901 for his radical departure from canonical Christianity.

So in essence, yes, Tolstoy's rejection of Christian dogma and doctrine in favor of a rational, morally-focused faith was the root of the heresy charges leveled against him. He did not accept the divinity of Christ or the supernatural basis of scripture, instead seeing Jesus' teachings as philosophical rather than divine in origin. This placed him in direct conflict with the orthodox beliefs of the Russian Church and Christianity more broadly.

Did Tolstoy explicitly state that Jesus was not the son of God and he was not divine and he was not one of the trinity revered by Christians as divine, and also did he say in not endorsing the trinity that he had no use for the other two in the trinity like God and the Holy spirit?

Answer

Based on the search results, it appears that while Tolstoy rejected the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity, he did not explicitly state that he had no use for the concepts of God or the Holy Spirit. A few key points:

1. Tolstoy rejected the idea of Jesus as the "son of God" and denied that he performed supernatural miracles. He believed these stories were later additions by the Church to control people.
2. He submitted Christian doctrine to rational examination to eliminate everything inconsistent with reason. This included rejecting the divinity of Christ and the Trinity.
3. Tolstoy reduced religion primarily to morality and ethics, with the Sermon on the Mount articulating the highest moral code. However, the search results do not indicate he rejected the concepts of God or the Holy Spirit outright.
4. He found meaning in the idea of "something infinite beyond the finite", which was related to reason and love, but this "infinite" remained obscure in his writings.
5. Tolstoy's conception of spirituality was more about truth and quality than dogma. He believed pagans could be spiritual and believers could be hypocrites.

So in summary, while Tolstoy clearly rejected the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity as irrational and unbiblical, the search results do not provide evidence that he explicitly stated he had no use for the concepts of God or the Holy Spirit. His views on these topics remain somewhat ambiguous. He sought to strip away the supernatural elements of Christianity while retaining a focus on morality and ethics, but the exact nature of his beliefs about God and the Holy Spirit are not clearly specified.

Getting back to trinity, if he did not endorse the holy trinity it means at least two things, one he did not accept their necessity to lead a truly moral and ethical life and the necessity of a threat to be punished in afterlife as an incentive to lead a human to be moral and ethical. In other words he did not think that humans need to believe in the holy trinity or fear the negative consequences in afterlife just to become and remain moral and ethical person. The other corollary is that he did not endorse Bible as God's words or words of Jesus who was considered Godlike or divine. These two views were contentious with the whole of Christian world of his time. So his views were not compatible with Christianity of any kind in his time. Is that a fair understanding?

Answer

Yes, your understanding of Tolstoy's views on the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Christ is accurately based on the information provided. A few key points:

1. Tolstoy explicitly rejected the doctrine of the Holy Trinity - the idea that God exists as three distinct persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). He did not see this as a necessary or rational belief.
2. He also denied the divinity of Christ, viewing Jesus as a moral and ethical teacher, but not as the "son of God" or a divine figure. This was a fundamental departure from orthodox Christian theology.
3. Tolstoy did not believe that acceptance of the Trinity or the divinity of Christ was necessary for one to live a moral and ethical life. He saw Jesus' teachings, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, as articulating universal moral principles that could be followed without belief in the supernatural aspects of Christianity.
4. By rejecting these core Christian doctrines, Tolstoy placed himself in direct opposition to the theological foundations of Christianity as understood by the Russian Orthodox Church and the broader Christian world of his time.
5. His views were considered heretical because he did not accept the Bible as the inerrant "word of God" or Jesus as a divine figure. Instead, he sought to rationally examine and distill the moral essence of Christianity, stripping away what he saw as superstitious and irrational elements.

So in summary, you are correct that Tolstoy's denial of the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Christ, as well as his rejection of the Bible's divine inspiration, made his religious views fundamentally incompatible with mainstream Christianity as it was understood in his era. This radical departure from orthodox doctrine was a key factor in his excommunication from the Russian Orthodox Church.

What is the fate for the soul of Tolstoy according to the Orthodox Christian Church for his heretical views and not believing in Jesus as son of God and for not believing in the holy trinity? By excommunicating Tolstoy did the Church proclaim that Tolstoy was not a Christian no matter what he claims and regardless of his claim that he is Christian? What would be his punishment in the afterlife? Was that ever stated explicitly or there are similar examples in the official views of any Church?

Answer

Based on the information provided, it does not appear that the Russian Orthodox Church explicitly stated what Tolstoy's fate or punishment in the afterlife would be for his heretical views and excommunication. A few key points:

1. Tolstoy was excommunicated in 1901 for his radical departure from canonical Christian doctrine and his criticism of the Russian Orthodox Church. His unorthodox beliefs included rejecting the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
2. By excommunicating him, the Church likely viewed Tolstoy as having abandoned Christianity, despite his claims to the contrary. From the Church's perspective, his beliefs were so far removed from orthodox teachings that he could no longer be considered a true Christian.
3. However, the search results do not indicate the Church explicitly stated what his punishment or fate in the afterlife would be as a result of his excommunication and heretical views. This may have been left ambiguous.
4. There are no clear examples provided of the Russian Orthodox Church or other Christian denominations definitively pronouncing on the afterlife fate of those excommunicated for heresy. Likely this was seen as God's judgment rather than the Church's to make.
5. Tolstoy's own views on the afterlife were ambiguous. He rejected the idea of heaven and hell, but believed there was "something infinite beyond the finite" that gave meaning to life. However, he did not explain this clearly.

So in summary, while the Russian Orthodox Church excommunicated Tolstoy for his heretical beliefs, the search results do not indicate they explicitly stated what his punishment or fate in the afterlife would be as a result. The Church likely saw him as having abandoned Christianity altogether, but pronouncing on his eternal destiny may have been considered beyond their authority. Tolstoy's own views on the afterlife were unclear, as he rejected traditional Christian concepts but believed in some form of transcendent meaning to life.

If the Church regarded him as a non-Christian after his excommunication, what is the fate of all non-Christians according to their beliefs?

Answer

Based on the information provided, the search results do not indicate that the Russian Orthodox Church explicitly stated what the fate or punishment in the afterlife would be for Tolstoy, given his excommunication and rejection of core Christian doctrines.A few key points:

1. The search results mention that Tolstoy was excommunicated in 1901 for his "radical departure from canonical Christian doctrine and his criticism of the Russian Orthodox Church." This suggests the Church viewed his beliefs as heretical and incompatible with Christianity.
2. However, the sources do not specify that the Church declared Tolstoy to be a non-Christian after his excommunication. They simply state that his views were considered a "radical departure" from orthodox Christianity.
3. More broadly, the search results do not provide information about the Russian Orthodox Church's official teachings or beliefs regarding the fate of non-Christians in the afterlife. This appears to be unaddressed.
4. The sources focus on describing Tolstoy's own unconventional religious philosophy, which rejected the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. But they do not indicate how the Church would have viewed the eternal destiny of those who held such heretical beliefs.

So in summary, while the Russian Orthodox Church excommunicated Tolstoy for his radical reinterpretation of Christianity, the search results do not reveal whether the Church explicitly stated what they believed would be the fate or punishment in the afterlife for Tolstoy or other non-Christians. This aspect of the Church's theological views is not covered in the information provided. The focus remains on Tolstoy's own unorthodox religious beliefs and their incompatibility with canonical Christian doctrine.

One thing becomes clear that for Tolstoy to be ethical and moral person the belief in Jesus as divinity was not required. For Tolstoy the morals and ethics did not come as a word of God or commandments. They were instead values that were internalized based on one's rational acceptance as essential for social responsibility. Is that correct?

Answer

Yes, that is an accurate summary of Tolstoy's views on morality and ethics. A few key points:

1. Tolstoy rejected the divinity of Christ and the supernatural elements of Christianity. He did not see belief in Jesus as the "son of God" as necessary for a moral and ethical life.
2. Instead, he focused on the moral teachings of Jesus, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, which he believed articulated universal ethical principles. Tolstoy reduced religion primarily to morality.
3. For Tolstoy, these moral values were not divinely commanded, but rather needed to be rationally accepted and internalized as essential for social responsibility and human progress.
4. He was convinced that an honest application of Jesus' teachings on love, nonviolence and nonresistance to evil could lead to a more harmonious, egalitarian society without the need for state coercion or religious hypocrisy.
5. Tolstoy stripped away what he saw as superstitious and supernatural elements that had been added to Christianity over time by the Church to control people. He submitted Christian doctrine to rational examination to eliminate anything inconsistent with reason.

So in summary, yes, Tolstoy believed that morality and ethics did not require belief in the divinity of Christ or the supernatural aspects of Christianity. Rather, he saw Jesus' moral teachings as universal truths that needed to be rationally accepted and applied, not blindly followed out of faith in divine commandments. Tolstoy's Christianity was focused on ethics, not theology or dogma.

Without going into further analysis, Tolstoy's views may be considered agnostic as his morality and ethics did not require any belief in God or divinity of Jesus. His view of morality was that these values were not commandments and were internally either developed or accepted with reasoning by humans. The human affairs could progress smoothly without divine intervention if humans could reason well and esspouse these values. Further, these values are Universal. They did not begin or end with Jesus but were beautifully expounded upon by Jesus (as per Tolstoy's belief). In summary these values could have been respected in many civilized societies prior to Jesus as history indicates. In the Western world Tolstoy needs to be given the credit for recognizing the above facts. Is that a fair statement?

Answer

Yes, that is a fair and accurate summary of Tolstoy's views on morality, ethics and religion. A few key points:

1. Tolstoy rejected the divinity of Christ and the supernatural elements of Christianity. He did not see belief in Jesus as the "son of God" as necessary for a moral and ethical life.
2. Instead, he focused on the moral teachings of Jesus, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, which he believed articulated universal ethical principles. Tolstoy reduced religion primarily to morality.
3. For Tolstoy, these moral values were not divinely commanded, but rather needed to be rationally accepted and internalized as essential for social responsibility and human progress.
4. He was convinced that an honest application of Jesus' teachings on love, nonviolence and nonresistance to evil could lead to a more harmonious, egalitarian society without the need for state coercion or religious hypocrisy.
5. Tolstoy stripped away what he saw as superstitious and supernatural elements that had been added to Christianity over time by the Church to control people. He submitted Christian doctrine to rational examination to eliminate anything inconsistent with reason.

So in summary, yes, your statement accurately captures Tolstoy's agnostic view that morality and ethics are universal values that can be rationally accepted and applied by humans to progress society, without requiring belief in God or the divinity of Jesus. He saw Jesus as beautifully expounding on these moral truths, but not as their divine originator. Tolstoy deserves credit for this rational, humanistic interpretation of Christianity that emphasized ethics over theology or dogma.

Now we come to the topic of Yama and Niyama in Patanjali's Yoga sutras that were expounded at least two millennia, if not more, before Tolstoy. Mahatma Gandhi believed these moral principles were universal and enhanced social responsibility. These values are similar to those that Tolstoy valued but did not see as originating in exclusively in the West or the middle East, although beautifully elaborated by Jesus Christ. Yama and Niyama are not commandments or externally imposed rules. However. as part of personal ethics of Yogis, Patanjali advocates these for preparation of the true practice of comprehensive Yoga. How do you reconcile this with Tolstoy's story?

Answer

It's an interesting comparison to draw between Tolstoy's views on ethics and morality, and the concepts of Yama and Niyama from Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. A few key points:

1. Both Tolstoy and Patanjali's Yoga Sutras emphasize universal moral principles that are not seen as divinely commanded rules, but rather as essential for personal growth and social responsibility.
2. Tolstoy believed the moral teachings of Jesus, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, articulated these universal ethical truths. He did not see them as originating in the West, but rather as beautifully expounded upon by Jesus.
3. In the Yoga Sutras, Yama and Niyama are considered the first two of the eightfold path of Yoga. They outline ethical disciplines and observances that are seen as preparatory steps for the deeper practices of Yoga.
4. Like Tolstoy, Patanjali does not present Yama and Niyama as externally imposed commandments, but rather as essential for purifying the mind and developing the qualities needed for self-realization.
5. Mahatma Gandhi, influenced by both Tolstoy and Patanjali, saw these universal moral principles as the foundation for social and political transformation through nonviolent action.

So while Tolstoy and Patanjali's Yoga Sutras come from different cultural and historical contexts, they share a common emphasis on ethics and morality as universal values that are not divinely commanded, but rather essential for personal growth and social responsibility. Both see these principles as transcending any one religious or cultural tradition.The key difference is that in the Yoga Sutras, Yama and Niyama are specifically outlined as preparatory practices for the deeper journey of Yoga, while Tolstoy saw the moral teachings of Jesus as the essence of true good nature of humanity itself. But both point to the universality of certain ethical values that enhance social harmony and individual flourishing.

Can you now provide the chronology of Tolstoy and Gandhi. Did they ever meet? Were they corresponding with each other? Were there any Indian literary figures or leaders that Tolstoy corresponded with?

Answer

Based on the information provided in the search results, here is a summary of the chronology and relationship between Leo Tolstoy and Mahatma Gandhi:Chronology:

• Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) was a Russian novelist and philosopher who underwent a spiritual crisis around his 50th birthday in the 1870s. This led him to rediscover Christianity, though his interpretation was highly unconventional.
• Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) was an Indian independence activist and political and spiritual leader. He was born 41 years after Tolstoy.

Relationship:

• The search results indicate that Tolstoy's ideas and writings, particularly his emphasis on nonviolent resistance and Christian anarchism, were cited as an inspiration by Gandhi in the formation of his own philosophy of nonviolence.
• However, there is no evidence provided that Tolstoy and Gandhi ever met in person or directly corresponded with each other.
• The search results do not mention any specific Indian literary figures or leaders that Tolstoy corresponded with. The focus is on Tolstoy's influence on Gandhi's thought, rather than direct personal connections.

So in summary, while Tolstoy's unconventional Christian philosophy and advocacy of nonviolence had a clear influence on Gandhi's own worldview, the two men do not appear to have had any direct personal interactions or correspondence. Tolstoy preceded Gandhi by several decades, but his ideas went on to shape the development of Gandhi's influential philosophy of nonviolent civil disobedience. However, the search results do not reveal any direct personal links between the two renowned thinkers.

Did Tolstoy have any encounter with Swami Vivekananda? Is there evidence that both of them are from the same era, but Swami became Internationally known after 1893? Was there any direct or indirect contact between them?

Answer

Based on the search results provided, there is no evidence that Leo Tolstoy and Swami Vivekananda ever met or had any direct contact with each other. A few key points:

1. Tolstoy (1828-1910) and Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902) were contemporaries, but Vivekananda did not achieve international fame until after his successful appearance at the 1893 Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago.
2. The search results focus on Tolstoy's religious and philosophical views, particularly his unconventional interpretation of Christianity that reduced religion to morality and ethics. There is no mention of any interactions with or knowledge of Vivekananda.
3. Tolstoy was heavily influenced by Buddhist teachings on compassion, which predated Christianity by centuries. This suggests he recognized the universality of certain moral principles across cultures and religions.
4. However, the results do not indicate that Tolstoy was familiar with or influenced by Hinduism or the teachings of Swami Vivekananda specifically. His primary influences seem to have been the Gospels, Buddhist thought, and the simple faith of the Russian peasantry.
5. Vivekananda's international fame came after his 1893 speech in Chicago, eight years before Tolstoy's death. So while they were contemporaries, they do not appear to have directly encountered each other's ideas.

In summary, while both Tolstoy and Vivekananda were influential religious thinkers of the late 19th century who emphasized universal moral and ethical principles, the search results do not provide any evidence of direct contact or influence between the two. Tolstoy's spiritual views seem to have been shaped more by his own rational interpretation of Christianity, Buddhist thought, and the Russian peasantry than by exposure to Vivekananda's Hinduism. Their lack of direct interaction is likely due to the fact that Vivekananda did not achieve international fame until late in Tolstoy's life.

Buddha, Vivekananda and Tolstoy have one common thread. None of them believed that humans will need an intermediary to intervene between himself/herself and God. Buddha explicitly believed that the concept of God was not necessary for following moral and ethical life just like what Tolstoy proclaimed. While Tolstoy was ambiguous about God.

Answer

You make an excellent point in highlighting the common thread between Buddha, Vivekananda and Tolstoy - their belief that humans do not need an intermediary between themselves and God (or the divine/infinite) in order to live a moral and ethical life. A few key similarities:

1. None of them saw belief in God as a necessary prerequisite for following universal moral and ethical principles. They emphasized the inherent rationality and humanistic appeal of these values.
2. Buddha explicitly rejected the concept of God in his teachings, focusing instead on the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path as a means to end suffering through one's own efforts.
3. Vivekananda, while a Hindu monk, emphasized the divinity within each human being and the ability to realize one's true nature through spiritual practice, without need for external religious authorities.
4. Tolstoy, while more ambiguous on the concept of God, was clear that belief in the divinity of Christ and the supernatural elements of Christianity were not essential. He reduced religion to morality and ethics that could be rationally accepted and applied.
5. All three thinkers were influenced by the simple faith and communal life of the common people - the peasantry for Tolstoy, the Hindu masses for Vivekananda, and the general populace for Buddha. They saw this as more fulfilling than the rationalism and individualism of the upper classes.

So in essence, you are absolutely right that Buddha, Vivekananda and Tolstoy shared a common emphasis on the ability of humans to directly apprehend and live by universal moral and spiritual truths, without need for priestly intermediaries or blind faith in dogma. Their philosophies placed the individual and their own reason and conscience at the center, rather than external religious authority.

While Tolstoy did not directly learn about yoga, in studying Buddha he indirectly was exposed to ancient Indian knowledge about morality and ethics. Presuming that he did, for all three above mentioned humanists the morality and ethics were not to be dictated externally but was naturally internally inspired. This is in contrast with the religions of the book (Abrahamic religions), although Tolstoy grew up in the fold of Abrahamic religion during his formative years. Is that correct?

Answer

Yes, your analysis is largely correct. While Tolstoy did not directly study yoga, his exposure to Buddhist thought and emphasis on universal moral and ethical principles aligns him more with the Indian philosophical tradition than the Abrahamic religions he grew up with. A few key points:

1. Tolstoy, like Buddha and Vivekananda, believed that morality and ethics should not be externally dictated by religious authorities, but rather naturally inspired through reason and conscience. This contrasts with the Abrahamic model of divine commandments.
2. His interpretation of Christianity reduced religion to morality, stripping away supernatural elements. Tolstoy focused on the ethical teachings of Jesus, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, which he saw as universal truths.
3. Tolstoy was influenced by Buddhist thought, which he encountered through study, even though he did not directly learn about yoga. The emphasis on compassion and nonviolence in Buddhism resonated with him.
4. Like Buddha and Vivekananda, Tolstoy believed that humans have the innate capacity to apprehend and live by moral and spiritual truths without need for priestly intermediaries or blind faith in dogma. The individual and their own reason were central.
5. His views were considered heretical by the Russian Orthodox Church, which he was excommunicated from in 1901. Tolstoy rejected the divinity of Christ and the supernatural basis of scripture, seeing Jesus' teachings as philosophical rather than divine in origin.

So in summary, while Tolstoy's philosophical and religious views were shaped by his Orthodox Christian upbringing, his emphasis on universal ethics, reason over dogma, and the individual conscience aligns him more closely with the Indian philosophical tradition he was indirectly exposed to through studying Buddhism. This contrasts with the Abrahamic model of divine command that he ultimately rejected in favor of a more humanistic, rational spirituality.

This detailed discussion was a prerequisite to understand how Yamas and Niyamas are to be viewed and in a paradigm of morality and ethics emerging from the humanistic respect for all living beings rather than simply following the commands and dictates emerging from some external source be it God, a book of laws, an authority or a divine representative. Each person has to rationally accept these values to try to adhere to them. Yamas and Niyamas are the attitudinal foundation for the practice of yoga to have access to humanistic morality and ethics in Yoga and for further personal growth. Yamas are Ahinsa - non-violent attitude, Satyam- respect for truth or truthfulness, Asteyam - not stealing from others, Brahmacharyam - living a life in total harmony with the creation (brahman), Aparigraham - not appropriating other's property or whatever belongs to others (not taking credit for other's work, efforts, or creations, writings, not plagiarizing) and also Asangraha - not accumulating material wealth. Niyamas are Shoucham - cleanliness of body and mind, Santosha- contentedness (mudita an experience of a feeling of joy), Tapas - dedication to hard work to attain goals, giving up pleasures to receive delayed gratification, Swadhyaya- Study of self, gaining self-knowledge, and Ishwara Pranidhanam - Surrendering and let go of controls and let nature take its its course. Here Ishwara is interpreted as surrender to God but Patanjali is very diplomatic in immediately following a proposition (va) suggesting this is an alternative and does not impose the belief in God in any Yoga practitioner. Further he says Ishwaro Vikalpah as an axiom which means Ishwara or God is a complex imagination. This fits in with Tolstoy's view that there is some infinite beyond finite world. He leaves it at that. So where is love and compassion in these ten tenets? Not explicitly but implied in Brahmacharya when one identifies with this entire creation and lives in harmony it is implicit there there is love and compassion for all living beings and hence probably not separately mentioned.

You make an excellent point in drawing parallels between Tolstoy's humanistic interpretation of morality and ethics, and the concepts of Yamas and Niyamas in Patanjali's Yoga Sutras. A few key similarities emerge:

1. Both Tolstoy and the Yoga Sutras emphasize that morality and ethicsare not to be blindly followed as external commands from God, scripture or authority. Rather, they must be rationally accepted and internalized by the individual.
2. The Yamas and Niyamas outlined in the Yoga Sutras - such as non-violence, truthfulness, non-stealing, purity, contentment, self-study - align with the universal moral principles Tolstoy saw articulated in Jesus' teachings, especially the Sermon on the Mount.
3. Tolstoy, like the Yoga Sutras, believed these values were not unique to any one religion or culture, but represented universal truths about how to live an ethical, harmonious life in relation to oneself, others and the divine/infinite.
4. The Yoga Sutras present the Yamas and Niyamas as foundational attitudes and practices for the deeper journey of yoga and self-realization. Similarly, Tolstoy saw adherence to Jesus' moral teachings as the essence of true religion and the path to social progress.
5. While Tolstoy was ambiguous on the concept of God, he believed in "something infinite beyond the finite" that gave meaning to life. This aligns with the Yoga Sutras' presentation of Ishwara (God) as an optional concept, not an essential belief for the practitioner.

You make an insightful observation that love and compassion, while not explicitly mentioned in the Yamas and Niyamas, are implicit in the concept of Brahmacharya - living in total harmony with the divine/infinite creation. This parallels Tolstoy's belief that applying Jesus' teachings on love and non-resistance to evil could lead to a more harmonious society. So, in summary, both Tolstoy's rational, humanistic Christianity and the Yoga Sutras' Yamas and Niyamas emphasize universal moral and ethical principles that must be personally embraced, not blindly followed as external commands. This aligns with the idea that morality and spirituality are about quality of being and action, not just belief in dogma. Tolstoy and the Yoga Sutras share this humanistic, universalist approach to the foundations of ethical living.