From PhilPapers forum Philosophy of Religion:

2010-06-30
A theory of religion
Reply to Jim Stone
I note that Jim S. briefly talked about supermundane in these terms, 2010-4-21:

Philip Quadro: 'I think we have to negotiate in terms of supermundane reality – on my understanding this does not necessarily mean ‘other world’ for it would seem to me to be the case that something like Brahmin or Nibbana is better to be considered the truth of this world and so immanent, that is, not fractured or broken off.'

Jim S. 
 Right. So 'supermundane' means super-ordinary, not super-
natural .  Indeed, many religious people on this planet do not have the western idea of 'nature.' It really would be strange to describe Nibbana or The Tao as supernatural.   Neither is miraculous.

It's unclear if Jim is  endorsing "immanent, not fractured or broken off."  The gloss of 'superordinary,' unexplicated, seems not to solve the problems mentioned in my most recent post. Further it's entirely possible that "immanent" for Jim, implies a difference of kind;  this would be consistent with his earlier statements.

And one might ask, Why is 'the truth' about this world 'superordinary'?  The Taodejing, at several points, links the Way and the ordinary.  Although there is some skepticism with regard to the senses, the following passages support the use of the term 'ordinary'.

[Merel translation]
12  In this manner the sage cares for people:
He provides for the belly, not for the senses;
He ignores abstraction and holds fast to substance.

46  When a nation follows the Way,
Horses bear manure through its fields;

59  Manage a great nation as you would cook a delicate fish.

http://www.chinapage.com/gnl.html






.