In Hegel's 'Aesthetics', one can find a strong distinction between the Hebraic, true sublimity and the Indian, positive sublime. The main thesis of our article is that, from the rhetorical and cognitive point of view, the two sublimities do not form an opposition, although from the theological point of view they do. In order to affirm the thesis, we briefly analyze the main figures of the sublime as presented in Pseudo-Longinos' 'On the Sublime' and the concept of the sublime in Kant. According to our theory of the sublime, the Lyotardian formula of the sublime as 'presenting the unpresentable' should be expressed as 'representing the unimaginable'. When we examine the main examples of the Hebraic and the Indian sublime, we can easily see that in both literary cultures we can find a strong mimetic element as well as antimimetic evocation of the unimaginable. We identify the mimetic element in the sublime texts not only with space seen in accord with Kant but also with 'mimesis of emotion' which is regarded as the main form of mimesis in the ancient Greek tradition, for instance in Plato.

There is a widespread assumption that ethnic origins substantially contribute, if not constitute, the identity of individuals. In particular, among the ethnic elements, il is claimed that religion takes precedence and people could be individuated in terms of their religious affiliations. The purpose of this paper, however, is to show that strictly speaking identity cannot be constituted by religion. More precisely, it is argued that a phenomenological characterisation of individual identity fails to do justice to the philosophical requirements of identity. The argument is obviously philosophical by nature and is developed through an analysis of the concept of revelation. The phenomenon of revelation plays a pivotal role in the Judaic-Christian-Islamic tradition, yet by its very nature owes its authenticity to something prior to itself, namely, reason. This entails the priority of reason over revelation and as such undermines claims that purport to define identity in terms of revelation/religion. This detachment of identity from religion would clearly have far-reaching socio-political imphcations for issues such as diversity, pluralism and globahsation.

Buddhist values emerge from a vision of interdependence, nonattachment, and moderation in all pursuits. This article is a reflection on these traditional Buddhist teachings within the context of the current crisis of overpopulation and environmental degradation. I highlight the implied link (present in many religious traditions), between spiritual piety and the production of progeny, and the Buddhist rejection of this link is investigated. More importantly, the Buddhist values that encourage moderation and responsibility regarding procreation are highlighted. Buddhism does not suggest that people should 'go forth and multiply,' just as it does not view humans a special creation by 'God' and therefore given 'dominion' over the natural world.

In this paper I identify two problematic strands of Wilber's transpersonal theory. Firstly, I question Wilber's claim that his spectrum model is supported by the materials of all the world's major mystical traditions, arguing that his integral, hierarchical perspective privileges some traditions, while distorting others. Drawing heavily upon Andrew Rawlins on's recent, taxonomic study of mystical traditions, which identifies four authentic routes to spiritual emancipation (Cool Structured, Cool Unstructured, Hot Structured and Hot Unstructured), I argue that while Wilber's model, itself Cool (the source of spiritual liberation hes within oneself) and Structured (developmental, hierarchical), provides a valuable cartography of transpersonal structures and states of consciousness, h cannot adequately handle the materials of the alternative, soteriological paths of Hot traditions (emphasising the numinous, and as other than oneself) and Unstructured traditions (affirming that there can be no gradual, or progressive, spiritual development at ah). Secondly, and more cursorily, in the light of this discussion, I argue that it is Wilber's Cool Structured perspective that informs his judgement that Jung is an elevationist. I demonstrate that Jung's psychic model of the conjunction of opposhes is a Hot Structured one, which provides an alternative, soteriological path for people whose spiritual needs are very different from those addressed by Wilber.