While I definitely think of myself as a Christian, albeit of a slightly unconventional nature, I have long been attracted to Indian spirituality and India itself as a sort of spiritual homeland. The word love is hardly too strong to describe my feelings towards this country though I am not blind to its many shortcomings. I do believe that India represents something special for the whole of humanity. Spirituality is known and followed there like nowhere else even if, perhaps inevitably, it is abused there like nowhere else too.
But if that is the case why is India so unresponsive to Christianity? This is certainly true because although there are many Christians in India they represent a very small proportion of the population and I seriously doubt that proportion will increase much beyond its present state.
I think there are two reasons for this. Firstly, India's own spirituality is so ancient and so profound that it feels it has no need for any other. In this it may well be correct. The paths of love and knowledge are both fully known there. Hindus have great respect for Christ and his teachings and see him as a real 'mahatma' or enlightened soul but not as the Son of God who was the template and pattern and archetype for all enlightened souls, and without whom there could be no enlightened souls or however you wish to describe the state of union with God. So they do accept Christ spiritually but not theologically.
This leads to the second reason. Maybe India already has its own Christ. Not the full revelation of Christ which took place in the Holy Land 2,000 years ago and which was as described in the Christian religion, a unique event which transformed the whole world and opened the gates of heaven to all humanity, but something like a partial revelation which took place several hundred years earlier. This was the incarnation of Krishna.
I am not fully comparing the two. I said this was a partial revelation. It was not the Incarnation. It did not have the same universal purpose and effect of ransoming us from sin and death. But on a smaller, more local level it was something similar. Krishna was a God of love. He brought love to Indian religion and initiated the whole bhakti movement. I'm not saying these things weren't there before but they weren't there in anything like the same way or to the same extent. Krishna activated something that was latent but undeveloped. He lit the fuse that led to love of God, and the Bhagavad Gita, the book of his teachings to his disciple Arjuna, is like the New Testament of India with the Vedas, of course, as the Old Testament.
So India does have its own Christ of a sort, a Christ who speaks to it in its own language. Christianity will always be foreign to India. It will always be the religion of outsiders and maybe, as a religion, it was only ever intended for the West. But it is possible that a prefiguration of Christ came to India (whether as the overshadowing of a disciple or as a direct spiritual influence of another kind, I don't know) and taught India the way to God in terms that were appropriate for that country. Even the names are similar!
I'm not really a fan of Theosophy even though I think it brought a lot to a Western world that was losing its religion. It introduced many concepts that revived a flagging sense of the spiritual and opened up a deeper exploration of truth for many people struggling with 19th century materialism. But it did rather materialise spirituality itself and it always lacked a genuine mystical heart not to mention a proper appreciation of God. But one thing I read in a Theosophical book years ago struck me as an interesting insight. This was that Ramanuja had been an incarnation of Jesus.
Ramanuja was an 11th century theologian and philosopher from South India who is best known today for teaching a qualified non-dualism which he formulated in response to the strict non-dualism of Sankara. Without going into too much detail Ramanuja sought to preserve the distinction of Creator and created which Sankara's non-dualistic interpretation of the Upanishads effectively abolished. In short he taught a theistic religion which accorded creation a full and proper reality in contradistinction to Sankara's teachings which allowed creation a provisional reality only which was ultimately denied when metaphysical ignorance was removed and all differences were seen as illusionary including the fundamental difference between the soul and God. So the goal was not to reach a spiritual union with God but to see that there was never any difference between the soul and God. They are not two. This, of course, denies love though modern followers of this path try to squeeze that in anyway using elaborate intellectual gymnastics. But if the personal God is on a lower level of reality than the impersonal absolute then love is part of the world of unreality as opposed to being fundamental to existence.
Sankara was clearly an intellectual (even though he is supposed to have written devotional poems) but Ramanuja, though obviously highly intelligent and a profound philosopher, was primarily a lover of God. Now, (and here's the point of all this) I don't believe that Jesus really did incarnate as Ramanuja but I do think that he might have been the inspiration behind him and that Ramanuja may have been a disciple of Jesus', born in India to correct the metaphysical errors of Sankara and help establish or re-establish a bhakti approach to religion, and underline the idea that the true way to God is through love rather than knowledge, even though knowledge is important too. But it must be knowledge grounded in and motivated by love.
So I see Jesus as present in India through Krishna and Ramanuja, both of whom had a significant impact on Hindu religion, especially the bhakti or devotional approach.
But why have I put this piece on Albion Awakening? What's it got to do with the theme of this blog? Not that much admittedly. But one might see a connection between England and India which was perhaps born during the time of the Raj and endures to this day. English, of course, is still an official language in India and the country continues to be run on vaguely British lines. But that's just externals. If the conjectures in this article have any substance to them (a very long shot you might say), they tie up strangely with the idea that Jesus came to Britain as a young man. Britain and India would be the only two countries other than the Holy Land* to have an association with him, and there may be a deeper meaning to that than we can at present understand. Could India and Albion together one day have something to teach the world?
File this post under speculation!
File this post under speculation!
*Just for fun I should add that Bethlehem is almost exactly midway between Cornwall (which Jesus is supposed to have visited) in England and Mathura (Krishna's birthplace) in India, about 2,500 miles from each.
@William - Excellent piece - and thought provoking.
ReplyDeleteIndia unresponsive to Christianity? IN general yes - but on examination I'm not sure. It was a Muslim ruled country for several centuries before the century of British rule (only some of which was settled) - and there used to be many more Christians, as a percentage, than now (apparentlt 2.3 percent, still the third largest).
According to the sociologist/ demographer of religion Rodney Stark, the conversion of a nation is much slower than most people realise - taking typically *hundreds* of years, even when the rulers (at least initially) try aggressively to impose a new religion.
CS Lewis had some interesting discussions (in letters etc) about why the East generally, seemed outwith the Christian destiny.
By my understanding of things, the specific religion during mortal life is not crucial - because our decision to accept or reject Christ's gift of salvation comes after death. It may be that - in context, and for those individuals incarnated in that context - Eastern religions are a proper preparation for this decision?
I should note that there is at least one other country having an association with Jesus (post-Resurrection) - and that is North America; as recorded in The Book of Mormon, in one of my favourite passages, in which Christ ministers to the little children:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/17?lang=eng
Just to respond to your question, Bruce. I think we accept Christ or not in our hearts not as an intellectual proposition because it is the spirit of Christ that we must respond to rather than the form that spirit takes.
ReplyDeleteSo, yes, Eastern religions can certainly be a proper preparation for the post-mortem acceptance of Christ, especially he can appear in other forms, for example that of Krishna.
Which idea does not invalidate the fact that he does have a true form which best expresses his spiritual nature.
But I don't think India will ever be Christian in the conventional sense and nor is it intended that she should be.
especially if he can appear in other forms, for example that of Krishna.
ReplyDeleteHi William,
ReplyDeleteThis post prompted me to re-visit an work written by the Easter Orthodox Perennialist author James Custinger. From his essay "The Perennial Philosophy and Christianity",
Christian Perennialists conclude that it is a mistake to confuse the uniqueness of the only-begotten and eternal Son of God with the alleged singularity of His historical manifestation in first-century Palestine. Without denying that there is only one Son of God, or that he alone is the author of salvation, or that Jesus Christ is that Son, they contend that there are no Biblical or dogmatic grounds for supposing that this one Son has limited his saving work to his incarnate presence as Jesus. On the contrary, as St Athanasius and other early fathers insisted, though the Word "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14), he was not confined by his body even during his earthly ministry.
It is sometimes objected that this line of reasoning drives a wedge between the two natures of Christ, diminishing the integrity and importance of the historical Jesus in favor of the Word or cosmic Christ. But this is to forget that a separate Jesus of history, understood as a particular man with a temporally conditioned psychology, is largely the invention of modern scholars, who are themselves often at odds with the very teachings that traditionalist Christians intend to safeguard. According to the fathers, especially those who interpreted the council of Chalcedon (451) along the lines established by St Cyril of Alexandria, the Jesus of history IS the cosmic Christ, for there is no historical person to be conceived alongside or in addition to the eternal Person of the only Son. Of course, the humanity of Jesus cannot be denied. "Like us in all things except for sin", he was truly born, truly crucified, and truly raised from from the dead. But in encountering this humanity what one encounters is not an individual human being- not some "man of Nazareth"- but human nature as such, assumed into God and thus divinized.....
Though truly incarnate as Jesus Christ in Christianity, he is salvifically operative in and through non-Christian religions as well. In some He is present in an equally personal way, as in Krishna and the other Hindu avatars, in whom he was also "made man" (Nicene Creed), while in other he appears in an impersonal way, as in the Qur'an of Islam, where he made himself book."
The concern is often expressed that a Perennialist interpretation of Christianity has the effect of demoting Christ, making him only one among a variety of competing saviors. But if "by their fruits" (Matt. 7:20) one may discern whether religions are valid and if the fruit of sanctity is often found growing along non-Christian paths, it will perhaps seem instead that the power and scope of the Son of God are actually much greater than Christians had been led to believe, and the perennial philosophy will itself appear as a kind of inclusivism, but with an inclusivity no longer centered on Christianity or the church or its sacraments, but on Jesus Christ, the saving source of all wisdom.
Thoughts?
Can I get back to you on that tomorrow, Chris? From a very quick run through I would say I go along with some but not all of that ,just like I do with the Traditionalists in general actually! But I don't have time to do it justice at the moment unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to hearing your take on this position.
ReplyDeleteI'm more or less in sympathy with the gist of this article, Chris, in that I do believe that Christ as saviour of the world does work through various channels. But I also believe that only one of these is truly and fully him and that is the Incarnation. There's also the problem that not all religions say the same thing (theistic and non-theistic regions are very different) or even point to the same God. Can we really say that Allah, as represented in the Qur'an is the same as the Christian God?
ReplyDeleteThis is what I don't go along with.
"Though truly incarnate as Jesus Christ in Christianity, he is salvifically operative in and through non-Christian religions as well. In some He is present in an equally personal way, as in Krishna and the other Hindu avatars, in whom he was also "made man" (Nicene Creed), while in other he appears in an impersonal way, as in the Qur'an of Islam, where he made himself book."
I don't think he is equally present in those Hindu avatars and I certainly don't think he had much to do with the Qur'an which can only be viewed as several steps down from the spiritual level of the Gospels. Maybe it was appropriate for the people to whom it was given but then again maybe it was just a heresy, like a New Age channelling. The way the Muslim religion was propagated and spread do not lead me to think it was divinely ordained even though I have great respect for the Sufis and much Islamic culture. But i really don't know. No religion is pure not even the Christian one.
A very good post, William. One sees a real spiritual maturity and freedom from attachment to mere "form", and ego.
ReplyDeleteI am increasingly beginning to think that metaphysics, doctrines, and dogmas are a mistake.
Metaphysics increase ego and attachment. After a debate with anyone, I notice the other person is always angrier and more attached, and I develop my own ego and attachment as well.
We become attached to our various "positions", defend them from attack, and impose them on others - this is not spiritually healthy.
I sometimes wonder if the most spiritually advanced people are the ones who write nothing, and we don't hear about - writing itself indicates attachment, and ego.
Maybe such people wander and dwell in remote corners of the world, or live inconspicuous lives in modern cities.
Maybe the only permissible spiritual writing is for the purpose of getting beyond writing - i.e beyond the need for doctrines, dogmas, and metaphysics. Yet most of us write to impose our dogmas on others.
What we need is the Path of liberation from ego and attachments.
As we progressively liberate ourselves from ego and attachments, we begin to "see" - "knowledge is a function of character" - this is a truth that has been known for a long time to the worlds religious traditions. But what we now "see" probably cannot be expressed in words.
It is not at all the case that India rejected Christ. Rather it is the case that she accepted Him well before us. What can we offer India? Only a name, Christ. But the heart of the matter is not in a name.
That's why Indians were so puzzled at the Western attempt to proselytize - what were we bringing them that was new? A new name, but an old Path - and a strange claim that the old Path can must be known by the new name. Strange!
In essentials, India has indeed accepted Christ.
Anyways, excellent post, William, and thanks.
I take your point about arguing about metaphysics but still it's important to try to establish truth and clear away metaphysical cobwebs. A faulty metaphysics can lead to faulty spiritual practice and deeper entrenchment in illusion and attachment. But then so can a reasonably true metaphysics if reacted to incorrectly. My teachers did hammer home to me the necessity of love and living in the heart over and above any intellectualisation. Then the truth seeps into one, as it were, instead of being an ideological thing. There are no doubt people in the world whose metaphysical understanding is simplistic but who are nearer to God than many of the so called wise. It's always 'as a man thinketh in his heart' that counts, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteI also take your point about writing! Still I shall continue partly because it helps me sort my own ideas out and partly because I feel I ought to be doing something, however little, given the state of the world. Things have been passed to me so I suppose I think I should pass them on in my turn.
".......beyond the need for doctrines, dogmas , and metaphysics."
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that this is what folks are getting at when they say that they are spiritual but not religious. That spiritual experience and ego reduction is all that really matters. And that " religion" only has instrumental value to those ends and that doctrine is merely a vehicle.
i think such a view is not compatible with any orthodox religion.
I agree with what you say, William.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to issue a clarification, if I may -
Non-materialism can be called a metaphysical position, but what I mean is "specific" dogmas and doctrines about the precise nature of God and the precise nature of heaven, etc - that kind of thing, I am beginning to think, is mere attachment and ego.
The Path itself implies a few things that may be called metaphysical - that ego is wrong, that this world is not ultimate, etc.
But this is not the kind of metaphysics I mean - the kind of "knowledge" about ultimate questions that has any value is the kind that cannot be expressed in words, much less built into a system, much less argued about logically!
I find I care less and less about anything I can actually express in words - the kind of "knowing" I want is a result of following the Path, and passeth understanding.
Oh, about writing - writing is indeed necessary, but, I am beginning to think, necessary writing must be an attempt to get beyond writing :) Self-assertive writing as an attempt to impose dogmas is bad. Writing that liberates is good.
Your own writing helped me when I was starting out on the Path, William, and has many liberating elements to it!
@Chris
ReplyDeleteI am not saying there is no Path - I am merely opposing Path to System.
I am proposing a very specific and rigorous Path indeed, not the flaky, "anything goes", vague, "spirituality without religion" kind of thing, which usually just means not being entirely satisfied with modernity.
This is not incompatible with religion - Christ does not offer metaphysics or doctrines, and indeed tells us we must be "poor in spirit". All we must do is give up the world, die to ourselves, and follow Christ. It is a Way, a Path - not a system of doctrines and dogmas. Wherever this Path appears, it is Christ.
This "poor in spirit" needs to be emphasized - surely no clearer call to transcend dogmas and metaphysics and doctrines is possible. This call was taken up later by the great Christian mystics of the Middle Ages - Meister Eckhardt, the Theologia Germanica, and their apophatic theology.
Christ operated in a highly philosophical environment where there was a profusion of complex and refined systems - he cut through this dense jungle and thicket with one swift stroke. Leave all that behind, be poor in spirit, die to yourselves, and follow Me.
Buddhism, another major religion that at one time counted two thirds of the world its adherent, took the very same approach. No doctrines, no metaphysics. Transcend ego, transcend attachment ("die to yourself), and "reach the other shore", Nirvana.
Religion is not an intricate system of doctrines and dogmas that one must affirm but a Way and a Path inaugurated by a supernaturally inspired Agent who leads us out of this world and into our true home.
All Systems are self-assertion and keep us tied to our egos and this world.
In many ways, the religion that grew up around this simple message and became Christianity is at variance with this central message, although it never entirely lost this central kernel until perhaps modern times.
"Spiritual but not religious" isn't entirely wrong but is incomplete, and is associated with flakiness, superficiality, and vagueness because of the way it is commonly used by New Age types. It is also a catch-all phrase that can include anything that isn't materialism.
Many people who define themselves as spiritual but not religious have very elaborate systems and seek to self-assertively impose this on others in a very vocal way. They are extremely attached in every way possible.
They most certainly do not go beyond ego, self-seeking, and self-assertion, they most certainly have not gone beyond attachment to worldly things and outcomes. They would be horrified at the need to transcend this world in the true Christian sense, to adopt the via negativa.
What I am getting at is the "Madhyamika" philosophy of Buddhism which is prefigured in things like "be poor in spirit" from Christ. And indeed, Mahayana Buddhism developed after Christianity and some think was influenced by it, although it clearly has roots in early Buddhist thought.
To Chris. Yes I think spirituality without religion can easily descend into doing what gives me pleasure and happiness in the here and now And if you are not very careful and deeply rooted spiritually You will drift into self indulgence. Every picture needs a frame and water needs a cup or container of Some kind if you are going to be able drink it.
ReplyDelete@Chris
ReplyDeleteI am not saying there is no Path - I am merely opposing Path to System.
I am proposing a very specific and rigorous Path indeed, not the flaky, "anything goes", vague, "spirituality without religion" kind of thing, which usually just means not being entirely satisfied with modernity.
This is not incompatible with religion - Christ does not offer metaphysics or doctrines, and indeed tells us we must be "poor in spirit". All we must do is give up the world, die to ourselves, and follow Christ. It is a Way, a Path - not a system of doctrines and dogmas. Wherever this Path appears, it is Christ.
This "poor in spirit" needs to be emphasized - surely no clearer call to transcend dogmas and metaphysics and doctrines is possible. This call was taken up later by the great Christian mystics of the Middle Ages - Meister Eckhardt, the Theologia Germanica, and their apophatic theology.
Christ operated in a highly philosophical environment where there was a profusion of complex and refined systems - he cut through this dense jungle and thicket with one swift stroke. Leave all that behind, be poor in spirit, die to yourselves, and follow Me.
Buddhism, another major religion that at one time counted two thirds of the world its adherent, took the very same approach. No doctrines, no metaphysics. Transcend ego, transcend attachment ("die to yourself), and "reach the other shore", Nirvana.
Religion is not an intricate system of doctrines and dogmas that one must affirm but a Way and a Path inaugurated by a supernaturally inspired Agent who leads us out of this world and into our true home.
All Systems are self-assertion and keep us tied to our egos and this world.
In many ways, the religion that grew up around this simple message and became Christianity is at variance with this central message, although it never entirely lost this central kernel until perhaps modern times.
"Spiritual but not religious" isn't entirely wrong but is incomplete, and is associated with flakiness, superficiality, and vagueness because of the way it is commonly used by New Age types. It is also a catch-all phrase that can include anything that isn't materialism.
Many people who define themselves as spiritual but not religious have very elaborate systems and seek to self-assertively impose this on others in a very vocal way. They are extremely attached in every way possible.
They most certainly do not go beyond ego, self-seeking, and self-assertion, they most certainly have not gone beyond attachment to worldly things and outcomes. They would be horrified at the need to transcend this world in the true Christian sense, to adopt the via negativa.
What I am getting at is the "Madhyamika" philosophy of Buddhism which is prefigured in things like "be poor in spirit" from Christ. And indeed, Mahayana Buddhism developed after Christianity and some think was influenced by it, although it clearly has roots in early Buddhist thought.
To Aaron. It all depends I would say. To approach God and the soul properly you must have some kind of idea what they are and what they are not. Otherwise all spiritual approaches are equally valid which is clearly false.
ReplyDeleteBut spirit must always be primary and any form it takes secondary. So have a metaphysic but don't be attached to it. Know that it is always capable of being transcended for something more. That's the way to go I would say.
" the kind of knowledge...,that cannot be expressed in words."
ReplyDeleteThe problem is this: Is there any such thing as an unmediated experience? Is the experience " pure" and then gets interpreted? Or is the experience "colored" right out of the box?
@ Chris -
ReplyDeleteYou are quite correct - all experience and knowledge gets filtered through our mental "categories" (time, space, individuality, etc). It is all colored right out of the box. There is no such thing as pure and unmediated experience or knowledge.
My use of words was clumsy and does not get at it.
This is precisely why negative theology was developed. You cannot say what it is, you can only say what it is not. That is why the mystics talk of "unknowing".
In terms of this world it is "nothing" - it is not knowledge, it is not experience, which is, as you say, all mediated by our categories - it is not "something"...and yet it is not nothing.
From the perspective of transcendence, it is "this" world which is "nothing".
It is utterly transcendent- beyond our mind. It is another world that we reach when we still the intellect and connect with something unnameable within us. It is the "darkling aspiration" of Tolstoy, the unnameable aspiration within us.
But this kind of "experience" can only be described in terms of what it is not.
Interestingly, as a digression - the fact that our mental categories organizes sense data into "knowledge" is the basis for Bruce's saying that imagination gives us access to Reality. Our minds "organize" the world and participate in its creation - the "world" is as much a creation of our minds as it is "out there".
(I use "world" to mean what appears to us)
Hume's famous problem of induction is the starting point here, developed by Kant.
Yet see how Bruce and Barfield reach the opposite conclusion from me while starting from the same point!
For me this means the "world" is not absolutely real - for them, they accept the reality of the "world" as an unquestioned assumption, but then observe! - if you do so, you have no choice but to accept that our minds participate in creating Reality, and therefore Imagination - in some sense - gives us access to Reality.
I do not find their solution convincing. I also find it vague.
But it is interesting how the same starting point can lead to opposite conclusions!
P.S - I appear once again to be dabbling in metaphysics, but only of the kind that leads to the cessation of metaphysics.
It is true that a whole lot of the "New Age" culture is flaky , vague, and shallow. However, there are many SBNR folk who are not. Aaron, the position that you presented, I think, represents an excellent general description of the view of many an authentic and serious seeker. It's a pov that I once held and still have tremendous sympathy for. But, plainly stated, it runs contrary to traditional Christianity (at the very least). According to the fathers, Christ was not merely an avatar, but the Second Person of the holy Trinity. But what "metaphysical less" metaphysics basically does is to Theravada-ize Christianity- it changes the meaning of the Incarnation and makes the Trinity practically irrelevant. After all, those are just counter productive doctrines that encourages ego attachment and enslaves us to thought.
ReplyDeleteI think this is what Watts and Krishnamurti (among other Neo-Hndus) were getting at. But, in the end, I suspect that those with such views end up sawing off the branch that they are sitting on.
The trouble is negative theology theology overcomes some of the difficulties of a positive theology or attempt to create a metaphysics of reality that incorporates the truths of the relative world, but it has some of its own.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically it doesn't engage the heart. It can become an intellectual exercise rather like the Madhyamika of Buddhism you mention (imo) or else it can become a dry mysticism in which love takes a back seat to a sort of pure abstract consciousness which is fine as far as it goes but certainly not the whole story.
Love loves beauty and there's no room for beauty in a negative theology.
So that's why both are true in their own way and neither is true exclusively.
There is a hierarchy of being with spirit clearly at the top. But all parts of the hierarchy have their roles to play. Spirit is the light in which everything else must be seen but to illuminate everything else not to drown it out in that light completely.
But if you're saying that the finger can become more important than the moon if you are not correctly orientated then I quite agree.
And I think Chris is right that there is something in Christianity and in Christ himself that goes beyond all other forms of spirituality and we need to identify what that is which requires a theology. That does not preclude the basic spiritual teachings but can be added to them to reach a greater understanding.
@Chris -
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, it does indeed contradict doctrinal Christianity in any form, although let us not forget the Christian Mystics. I follow them in this, and think they are truer to Christ than dogmatic Christian sects of any kind.
I am not a doctrinal Christian, though, but rather a highly eccentric one, like Bruce and William, or like Tolstoy, who I admire.
However, this position is more influenced by Mahayana Buddhism than the Theravada, and especially the Madhyamika philosophy in particular.
Well, yes, it is cutting off the branch one is sitting on - intentionally. Branches offer false security. We must go into the "homeless life". We must choose radical insecurity. We must give up searching for "homes". We must abandon wife and family, our very lives, and follow Christ.
That's the idea, anyways, but I understand you don't agree.
My objection to Krishnamurti is that he doesn't "even" cut off the branch he is sitting on. Accepting radical insecurity is a "specific" Path - K does not even choose that. K says a branch is OK, or no branch is OK. This is too close to antinomianism, although he seems to have led a holy life. K confuses "nothing" with "anything".
My basic orientation is negative - liberation rather than development, freedom from illusion (enlightenment) rather than developing mental capacities, and ultimately, a Way out of this world. I think this is the only true alternative to modernity, and that modernity is the development of the positive affirming tendencies.
But I understand that many disagree with me.
Anyways good luck Chris!
@William -
ReplyDeleteI see what you are saying, but I think this is a basic disagreement here between us.
For instance, I know that you think individuality is necessary for love. But I think when we liberate ourselves from individuality compassionate love wells up spontaneously within us like a fountain.
For me, it is only when you give up all attachments that you can truly have loving compassion towards others, but you think love itself is a kind of attachment, if I understand you (or maybe that's Bruce's position).
I would say posessive passionate love (eros) requires attachment and individuality, but compassionate benevolence (agape), not possessive, without passion, is spiritual love.
You say negative theology is "dry" and intellectual - but how can the most radical desire to go beyond the intellect be "intellectual"?
I think the main difference between us is that you are working with the standard and basic human categories - intellect, emotion - and you think this is all there is. And once these are gone, nothing is left. So maybe it removes some bad, but it does not let us reach the Good. It is too a high a price to pay.
What you do not see is that there is something "left over" after you remove the standard human categories. That something is God and Spirit.
Negative theology reveals and uncovers a positive - it is only negative instrumentally.
You strive to "attain" the Good, but what if the Good merely needs to be "uncovered"? What if all striving takes us further away from the Good?
As the Mystics say - so long as there is any "I", God has no space to fill. Remove the "I", and God rushes in.
All he Mystics report that the "negative" process connects us to the most blindingly incredible Good there is.
And if you think about it, William, does it not accord very well with the notion of the Fall? To re-connect with God we must un-do the assertion of will that separated us from him to begin with. And what about the self-negating character of the Sermon?
The fear of negative theology seems to me based on a shaky belief in the supernatural - maybe there isn't another force out there - God - outside our own force. Maybe there is only the "I".
The basic difference is in one's belief in forces other than the "I" that operate - you think love has to be attained and striven for, whereas I think it is a force that rushes in precisely when I am no longer pursuing my egotistic ends.
Instrumental "negativity", it seems to me, is the basis of the religious world view - we recognize that supernatural forces, God, exists, and we align ourselves with them. Achieving the Good through direct striving seems to affirm the primacy of the "I", and is the basis of modernity.
That is why all religions seem to have a "negative" character, and all modernity seems "positive".
I appreciate the thoughtful comments here. I must confess that I, too, am a rather idiosyncratic Catholic; A straight-up heretic to my more traditionalist brethren. But, I think William is on to something vis a vis negatIve theology. Increasingly, I'm moving to the view that this kind of discussion ultimately comes down to those basic dualities: one/many; knowledge/love; bhakti/Jnana; theism/nondualism. What I find frustratIng is the claim that unqualified nondualism or "pure apophasis" goes "beyond" dualistic theism, that it "transcends and includes" the "lower level" of a personal God and it's concomitant beliefs and dogmas. Respectfully, that kind of talk reminds me of materialist atheists who smugly say that they merely "lack a belief" in God/s. That's confused at best, intellectually dishonest at worst. Perhaps Chesterton got it right when he said, " There are two kinds of people- those who are dogmatic and know it and those who are dogmatic and don't know it."
ReplyDeleteChris, a very good book that helped me understand negative theology, and what transcendence means, is "Buddhism" by Goerge Grimm. Its available free online, I believe in the archive.or/openlibrary website.
ReplyDeleteIf you're not really interested in Buddhism you can read only the first few chapters and it will enrich your understanding of the Christian Mystics by a lot. I never really understood what all this transcendence stuff and negative theology stuff was getting at till I read that book.
Unqualified dualism is a dogmatic position just as much as dualistic theism, and as such, is not what Buddhism or the Christian Mystics are getting at. You are correct in that.
Thank you for the recommendation. I'm not familiar with that work. Incidentally, it was Buddhism that started me on a path that would eventually lead me "back" to the West. I have enormous respect for the spiritual and intellectual traditions of India and I have maintained a kind of inner "Hindu dialogue" to this very day. I (believe) that I understand negative theology all too well, Buddhism being the apophatic path par excellance. Now, I realize that there are various forms of Buddhism and non-theism in general with important distinctions, so I'm already in danger of over simplification. Again, with respect, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Presumably, you would claim that the state of affairs that you have unpacked is "truer" or "higher" or "realer" than what I or William have said. It that is so, haven't you, indeed, sawed off the branch that you're perched on? I don't discount the significance of mysticism, but clearly there are different forms. The moment you get into "ranking" them, again, haven't you violated your own principle? If you say that you are not ranking them, on what grounds could you object to dualism or dogma?
ReplyDelete@Chris
ReplyDeleteWell, I definitely rank the various positions we can take with regard to the Ultimate. I do believe some are more spiritually liberating and connect us with the mystery at the heart of religion better. However, I recognize many approaches as valid.
But I think I understand your objection, and I will try my hand at answering you. Forgive me if I have not understood you correctly.
Well, I have been expressing myself poorly. I have indeed been making negative statements, negating what others have said, and that would indeed commit me to a definite metaphysical position.
The moment you deny what someone else has said, you have adopted a stance - that is correct.
Once I have done that, I am no less dogmatic than anyone else. You are correct in noticing this, Chris.
I have not escaped the dogmatic trap, as I claim, if I make denials.
The correct apophatic position is to neither deny, nor affirm - you do not say it exists, and you do not say it does not exist. You do not say it is so, and you do not say it is not so. You do not say it has a particular attribute, and you do not deny it.
Instead, you transcend all human thought categories whatsoever. You maintain the famous "silence" of the Buddha.
The Buddha has often been taken to deny that the "I" exists, but he has done no such thing. In fact, the Buddha criticized people who deny that the "I exists and called them "annihilationists". The Buddha never said the "I" doesn't exist. You will not find him saying that.
The correct apophatic position is a pregnant silence - not denial.
Now, "why" should we adopt this stance towards the Ultimate?
Well, have you never wanted to go beyond anything your mind can conceive of? Have you ever dimly intuited there may be realities utterly beyond anything you can even conceive of? That your mental categories are not the last word?
In fact, that this is what you are called upon to do?
Have you ever felt that a God that you can describe or understand would not be a God worth having?
I believe the religious impulse is, at bottom, a desire to transcend this world - in its purest sense, that means reaching a completely "other world". But a completely "other world" would appear as "nothing" to a mind that is designed to apprehend "this" world, would it not? And yet it wouldn't be mere nothing.
We could not speak of it or conceptualize it. Is it not the case that our conceptualizing faculty is not the ultimate within us? Then why remain trapped within this limited function of our being and regard it as the ultimate?
Religion is about a confrontation with the ultimate Mystery - a mystery that is in principle "unknowable", and not mere ignorance. The "mysterium tremendum". Why else do we thrill to the word "mystery", and sense that it is bound up in some way with our ultimate destiny and mans deepest interest?
Because we know we are meant to go far, far beyond our current mental categories and conceptualizing faculty. But to do that, we must leave this world behind - and hence, the via negativa, the Great Liberation.
The "void", the "nothing", is only nothing from the perspective of this world.
This is a subtle concept to explain, and I am under no illusions that I have done a good job explaining it.
I also think there are other paths that are legitimate, and that anything that gets us closer to detachment, non-ego, compassion, and love, is a legitimate path for that person. Because this gets us beyond "nature", and that is the task.
This is in response to Aaron's (aka Unknown) comment of 10.38 which I originally put on another thread but is more appropriate here.
ReplyDeleteWe don't liberate ourselves from individuality but from attachment to and identification with individuality. Complete liberation from individuality would leave us with nothing. We need that in order consciously to know God. This whole business of negating the self comes from mistaking skilful means with actual reality. I will (hopefully, one day!) transcend my Williamness but that will be incorporated in the higher stage though in a totally transformed state. I don't say this because I am so attached to my silly little self but because the greater includes the lesser. It's not just discarded but transmuted into something new. Jesus had his favorite disciple as did the Buddha. That's individuality right there.
So I think compassion is a bit feeble compared to love. Love is a fire and compassion is diffuse and general compared to that. I can only say that Jesus loved while the Buddha had compassion and I see a big difference in how that played out in their lives and teachings.
The desire to go beyond the intellect can certainly take an intellectual form. It tended to I would say in Nagajurna and Sankara for example who wrote intellectually about going beyond intellect. So different to Christ. They lost simple connection to the truths of the heart.
I would phrase the difference between us a bit differently (to my advantage, of course!). I see the goal as the integration of the worlds of being and becoming to create something more than either of them. You might tend more towards the absolute while negating the relative. I think it should be drawn up into the absolute and melted in it like sugar in tea.
The 'I' to be removed is egotistical identification. If you really remove the'I'completely then God has nowhere to rush into. So yes, overcome ego, sacrifice the self but the unattached 'I' with all its borders removed still remains and it is that into which God rushes.
No I don't think we attain love. I completely agree that love is when identification with self goes. Love is the fact of life. You know, I think it may be words and peculiarities of expression that separate us more than basic doctrine. Nuance rather than substance.
Aaron/Unknown,
ReplyDeleteWow, that was a fabulous and concise explanation of Madhyamika philosophy! Excellent. It made me go back and review Nagarjuna's famous tetralemma. You know, it's interesting- you also have driven home for me why I came to start doubting the truth of the so called "Perennial Philosophy" or "Primordial Tradition". Is the position that you sketched at the "mystical core" of Christianity? I would have to say no. Not even the works of Meister Eckhart, Dionysius the Aeropagite, or Plotinus, which, as you know, are deeply apophatic, could be interpreted as saying the same thing (maybe somewhat close to the same thing). Now, don't misunderstand me, I am not claiming that the via negativa that you have unpacked is illegitimate or false, just that I think it is difficult to square with traditional Christianity (which includes Christian mysticism of course.)
Christianity is a fundamentally bhaktic religion; it is, as Ramana Maharshi once said, the path of love par excellence. Nevertheless, the classical theistic tradition of the West is deeply rooted in the tradition of negation, as you alluded to.
"Have you ever felt that a God that you can describe or understand would not be a God worth having?"
Absolutely! And so does traditional Christianity. What/Who God is as He is in Himself is beyond all categories of human thought. But that doesn't mean we can't saying anything about Him. Whatever we do say (positive) we have to then take back (negative). For example, is God a person? The answer would have to be yes and no. This is where Aquinas's famous doctrine of analogy comes in. The statement is neither univocal nor equivocal but analogical. This has been called the Via Eminentiae.
But underlying all of this is a spiritual practice of relationship and grace, so I think the path of liberation that you have described is hard to reconcile with the classical theistic tradition of Christianity. I want to say more, but I'm tight for time.
Cheers!
Thanks for your comment, Chris!
ReplyDeleteYou say grace and relationship - the idea is, the "I" interferes with any relationship to God. Any mental "image" of God gets us further from Him.
The basic idea is that we rely too much on ourselves. There are other forces at work that operate when we reduce the "I". The Tao, God.
The modern is the over-development of the "I" - the religious is reducing the "I" to create space for Tao or God (and thus Love, Compassion).
This is the fundamental and basic dichotomy facing mankind, and no other (in my opinion).
I see the bahktic approach as depending on the via negative, not opposed to it. I think Love can only arise as the result of the via negativa.
The Sermon on the Mount recommends an ascetic and self-denying life, and links this with Love. That is because Love cannot exist where we do not deny the self. Bahktic and via negative are inseparable.
But....
I recognize now there are many different kinds of individuals and many different approaches are valid, and we all have to choose for ourselves the best way.
An approach that for me would be self-development for another might be the best way for him to reduce his self and create space for God.
Approaches that I may have condemned in the past I now see as necessary for some people.
The important thing is to grow in Love, Compassion, and Detachment from worldly things, and be aware of forces vaster than our selves. However we do this can be dubbed good.
Good luck on your path, Chris!