Perbandingan Busana Arca Harihara Era Klasik Akhir (Koleksi State Hermitage Museum, Museum Nasional Jakarta, dan Balai Lelang Christie’s)

Harihara is the amalgamation of two great gods in Hinduism, Siva and Vishnu. During the Late Classical Era (Majapahit period, 13th-15th centuries AD) three deification statues which portrayed the kings as Harihara have been found. Out of these three, two of them are not located in Indonesia anymore, one is part of the collection of Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, and one is in Christie’s Auction Gallery. Since these two statues are not widely known, they are barely mentioned or studied in the field of classical archaeology and art. This research focuses on the physical attributes of those two statues, particularly the clothing elements and divine attributes, in comparation to the deification statue of Raden Wijaya as Harihara, which is originated from Candi Simping and now is located in National Museum, Jakarta. The research was conducted using a qualitative-comparative method with iconographic and historical approach. It is found that while these statues show the amalgamation of Siva and Vishnu’s attributes, the depiction of Harihara in those statues are not exactly following Harihara iconography as regulated in the canons of Silpasastra and Manasara. While the canon physical attributes of Shiva and Vishnu side by side equally, in the depiction of Harihara in Java, those attributes are mixed and not always follows a rigid pattern. It is suggested that the depiction of kings as Harihara show an attempt to project them as the unifier of different factions and religious sects. The inequal depiction of Vishnu and Siva’s attributes in king’s deification statues indicates not only the dynamics of the religion in the era, but also as mean to build king’s image in the image of the God.

What is God's Power?

Theists claim that God can make a causal difference in the world. That is, theists believe that God is causally efficacious, has power. Discussion of divine power has centered on understanding better the metaphysics of creation and sustenance, special intervention, governance, and providing an account of omnipotence consistent with other divine attributes, such as omnibenevolence. But little discussion has centered on what, deep down ontologically, God’s power is. I show that a number of prominent accounts of power fail to model what divine power could be, and then develop an account based on teleological and primitivist accounts of power.

THE LOGICAL PROBLEM OF EVIL IN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY: A Comparative Approach in the Thought System of Ibn Sînâ and Richard Swinburne

<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>The study of the ideas of Ibn Sînâ and Richard Swinburne as the pioneers of Islamic philosophy and the West philosophy, and on the other hand, the existing scholastic and ideological differences, is something that can help us to become more familiar with the thoughts of these philosophers and intellectual differences and similarities. In this research, with the analytical method and using the necessary documents, the nature, types, and solutions of evil in the thought of Ibn Sînâ and Swinburne are examined, and also the two philosophers’ thoughts about evil are compared. Both philosophers have considered the existence of evil not in contradiction with the divine attributes, but it is necessary for the acquisition of good, the minimum existence of which is necessary for the best system of creation.<strong> </strong><br /><strong> </strong><br /><strong>Abstrak:</strong> Kajian terhadap pemikiran Ibn Sînâ dan Richard Swinburne tentang kejahatan menjadi menarik untuk dianalisis karena perbedaan horizon berpikir keduanya. Jika Ibn Sînâ mewakili tradisi filsafat Islam, maka Richard Swinburne dianggap mewakili filsafat Barat kontemporer. Dalam artikel ini, penulis menganalisis dari dokumen kepustakaan yang diperlukan, baik tentang sifat, jenis, dan solusi atas kejahatan menurut pandangan Ibn Sînâ dan Swinburne. Bagi kedua filsuf, eksistensi kejahatan tidak bertentangan dengan sifat-sifat ilahi, tetapi ia diperlukan untuk memperoleh kebaikan dan keberadaan minimum yang diperlukan untuk sistem penciptaan perbuatan terbaik.</p><p><br /><strong>Keywords:</strong> evil, Ibn Sînâ, Richard Swinburne, Divine attributes, world of creation<em></em></p>

Teologiczna interpretacja pojęcia arché u wczesnych fi lozofów greckich: w kręgu teologii milezyjskich fi lozofów przyrody

The purpose of this article is an attempt to present one fundamental problem: identifi cation of the essential features of the arché in Milesian philosophers of nature by indicating possible relationships with theology. The theological interpretation of the Milesians indicates that arché does not merely have a material dimension, it is inherently external, going beyond, and consequently, the original principle contains a peculiar transcendence. In the concepts of natural philosophers, there is an archaic path to immortality, infi nity, and eternal existence, which are, in essence, divine attributes. There is a clear search to determine the relationship of divine sphere of existence with the world that we know from everyday experience. This means that the Milesians have found a plane on which the divine sphere and the temporal sphere can meet. There are certain frameworks within which there is an interaction between the divine element (constant and invariant) and temporal (transient and fi nite).

Pairing Problems: Causal and Christological

Trenton Merricks has objected to dualist conceptions of the Incarnation in a similar way to Jaegwon Kim’s pairing problem. On the original pairing problem, so argues Kim, we lack a pairing relationship between bodies and souls such that body A is causally paired with soul A and not soul B. Merricks, on the other hand, argues that whatever relations dualists propose that do pair bodies and souls together (e.g. causal relations) are relations that God the Son has with all bodies whatsoever via his divine attributes (e.g. God the Son could cause motion in any and all bodies via his omnipotence). So if we count these relations as sufficient for embodiment, then dualism implies that God the Son is embodied in all bodies whatsoever. I shall argue that while the original pairing problem might be easily answerable, the Christological pairing problem is not and that dualists must shift some of their focus from the defense of the soul’s existence to explicating the nature of the mind-body relationship.