On being 'dispassionate'

[Audrey]

I am wondering if someone might clarify for me what it means to be free of the passions. I learned very little about the passions during catechism. This week during the canon of St. Andrew there were some statements about being passionless or dispassionate. I was wondering what this means? Is "passions" a good English translation for what the Fathers spoke about?

I ask because I've always considered myself a very "passionate" person. I am assuming that being dispassionate doesn't mean feeling numb or feeling nothing or never getting excited. But, I don't know this for sure.

Are common human loves "passions?" For example, the love between friends, between parents and children, and between spouses is filled with feeling and emotion and oftentimes "passion". Is being dispassionate a state of wanting nothing and feeling indifferent about life circumstances? Thanks so much for feedback; it will help me this lent to decipher and repent of the passions in my life if I understand what they are and what they aren't.

[Irene]

Dear Audrey,

It is often hard to translate words correctly into English. Online translation programs certainly have trouble. If you have ever tried translating English to Russian and then back to English the result can sometimes be quite comical.

There are two different ways I can think of passions.

There is the "passion" to stand up and do what is right - eg defend an innocent person who is being abused in some way, have the passion to save a suffering animal. Work for good and not evil. The strong feelings we have for family and friends. The "passion" of the Saints and Martyrs for the faith. Not to have the "passion" to do what is right would be despondency/apathy or something like that. I think in Church terms we substitute love for this particular meaning of the word passion.

Then there is "the passions" the Church talks about. These are the bad passions - the demonic temptations. The passion of a person in a rage; the passion of lust; the passion of hate; the passion of vanity and worldliness. All those things that contaminate our Christian humility, the things we must fight against.

Does this make sense?

I know that I would love to know an old Church language such as Slavonic so that I could really understand the original words written by the Fathers.

In Christ
irene

[Mourad Mankarios]

Hi Audrey,

I think the following definitions from the Philokalia might be helpful:

PASSION (pathos): in Greek the word signifies literally that which happens to a person or thing, an experience undergone passively; hence an appetite or impulse such as anger, desire or jealousy, that violently dominates the soul. Many Greek Fathers regards the passions as something intrinsically evil, a 'disease' of the soul: thus St John Klimakos affirms that God is not the creator of the passions and that they are 'unnatural', alien to man's true self (The Ladder of Divine Ascent, Step 26, translated by Archimandrite Lazarus [op. cit.], p. 211). Other Greek Fathers, however, look on the passions as impulses originally placed in man by God, and so fundamentally good, although at present distorted by sin (cf. St Isaiah the Solitary, I: in our translation, vol. i, p. 22). On this second view, then, the passions are to be educated, not eradicated; to be transfigured, not suppressed; to be used positively, not negatively.

DISPASSION (apatheia): among the writers of the texts here translated, some regard passion (q.v.) as evil and the consequence of sin (q.v.), and for them dispassion signifies passionlessness, the uprooting of the passions; others, such as St Isaiah the Solitary, regard the passions as fundamentally good, and for them dispassion signifies a state in which the passions are exercised in accordance with their original purity and so without committing sin in act or thought. Dispassion is a state of reintegration and spiritual freedom; when translating the term into Latin, Cassian rendered it 'purity of heart'. Such a state may imply impartiality and detachment, but not indifference, for if a dispassionate man does not suffer on his own account, he suffers for his fellow creatures, It consists, not in ceasing to feel the attacks of the demons, but in no longer yielding to them. It is positive, not negative: Evagrios links it closely with the quality of love (agapi) and Diadochos speaks of the 'fire of dispassion' (17: in our translation, vol. i, p. 258). Dispassion is among the gifts of God.

[Andreas Moran]

I was taught that a passion is anything (and it may not be obviously sinful) which has a hold on us. It is any undue attachment. We ought to be able to say of anything, 'I can manage without that'. We can try to break such attachments in little ways just by saying, 'no' or 'well it doesn't matter'. Father Zacharias says that dispassion - apatheia - is very advanced.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I am wondering if someone might clarify for me what it means to be free of the passions. I learned very little about the passions during catechism. This week during the canon of St. Andrew there were some statements about being passionless or dispassionate. I was wondering what this means? Is "passions" a good English translation for what the Fathers spoke about?

I'm not a language expert but the choice of the word 'passion' does seem a very good translation. Especially in the texts for Great Lent & Great and Holy Week one can hear if one has the opportunity the same multiple uses of the word 'passion' as we have in English.

For example in this morning's Matins at the 2nd set of sessional hymns we have:


Through Thy Passion, O Lover of Mankind, Thou givest to all men freedom from the passions, putting to death the passions of my flesh by Thy divine Cross. Vouchsafe me, then, to see Thy holy Resurrection, O Lord.

This is translated directly from the Slavonic which has the same double usage for the word 'passion.'

Страсьми твоими безстрастие всемъ даяй человеколюбче

or more literally: Through Thy Passion, passionlessness to all [Thou] givest O Lover of Mankind.


About what the sinful passions are. The word most often is used to describe sinful energies but it can also be used to describe the energies which we have as humans by nature.

Thus a very Patristic way of understanding the sinful passions is the distortion of our inherent energies.

This is very important in the Orthodox sense of asceticism because we are not trying to crush what is sinful but rather trying to transform it.

Of course on first hearing this it sounds shocking. After all we are called to cut off sinful impulses. What is meant by transforming sin though is that when we look at the actual human impulses that gave birth to this sin what has occurred is a distortion in the person's will similar to what Herman on another post called missing the target. Although we could also say that with sin a person takes up the wrong bow & arrows and aims at the wrong target.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Thank you for your informative and very helpful words.

When you write

This is very important in the Orthodox sense of asceticism because we are not trying to crush what is sinful but rather trying to transform it.

you touch on something of vital importance, which I suspect is very little understood in the western tradition; indeed, the Orthodox understanding of this is one of the very many important things which the west could learn from Orthodoxy.

Regarding the passions as intrinsically evil can give one a very distorted view (depending on on far one takes this) of who we are and how we should live with ourselves and with others. Trying to destroy or crush something that is part of us can be a sort of misplaced pride; recognising that the way our passions manifest themselves at times is part of the distortion of sin, seems an altogether humbler (and healthier) way of approaching this grave problem. Here we come to the Church as to a spiritual hospital for healing. This image, of course, has a very long history.

In Book 1, chapter 9 of his The Instructor Clement of Alexandria writes:

Thus also we who in our lives are ill of shameful lusts and reprehensible excesses, and other inflammatory effects of the passions, need the Savior. And He administers not only mild, but also stringent medicines. The bitter roots of fear then arrest the eating sores of our sins. Wherefore also fear is salutary, if bitter.

There is wisdom, and humility in this - and, of course, what we all need to remember always - the promise of help if we will avail ourselves of the healing in the Church and its Holy Sacraments.

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear John,

Yes, the kind of asceticism you describe below can be a sort of misplaced pride; as part of this it can become an external activity. From this perspective asceticism is the sacrifice of something that is according to nature; thus the essence of the sacrifice of the chastity of a monastic for example, is how he/she has given up sexuality which is according to human nature. Here we have something very far off the Orthodox understanding of asceticism which is not to go against nature but rather to find it and transfigure it through a death to what is sinful within ourselves. Thus for the Orthodox monastic chastity is the prefiguration of the fulfillment of human nature in Christ.

This external kind of asceticism (and by external we don't mean it does not touch those who practice it deeply- it definitely does) has its own unique effects. To those who practice it there can be a level of self-violence or emotion that has not been known in the east. The result on the rest of the Church however was even more powerful as almost by definition because of the psychological predisposition of people, there occurred a fundamental division between an ascetic elite and the 'everyday' Christians 'living in the world'. The former were the monastics, mystics and through various measures it was hoped the clergy; the latter were the laity.

Seen from within this context I think one can see at least some of the roots of secularism in our society. For once the division between an ascetic elite and the laity has been created, then Christian life will tend to become what we used to call 'the religious life'. The ascetic elite actively sacrificing their life for Christ more nearly correspond to what the Church really is. While the huge majority of Christians due to the fact that they cannot live this elite life are seen as leading their religious life in the world. Ironically then it is the Church which creates the secular world.

The roots of this outer change though arise from a gradual loss of consciousness as to what the ascetic life is which in turn relates to understanding what our true nature is as humans. So this is a very deep issue.


Regarding the passions as intrinsically evil can give one a very distorted view (depending on on far one takes this) of who we are and how we should live with ourselves and with others. Trying to destroy or crush something that is part of us can be a sort of misplaced pride; recognising that the way our passions manifest themselves at times is part of the distortion of sin, seems an altogether humbler (and healthier) way of approaching this grave problem. Here we come to the Church as to a spiritual hospital for healing. This image, of course, has a very long history.



In Book 1, chapter 9 of his The Instructor Clement of Alexandria writes:


There is wisdom, and humility in this - and, of course, what we all need to remember always - the promise of help if we will avail ourselves of the healing in the Church and its Holy Sacraments.

In Christ,

John

PS: By the way, I'm a big fan of St Clement of Alexandria.

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

I am extremely grateful to you for such a thoughtful and helpful post. You elucidate and elaborate on what is such an important part of our life in Christ.

When you write

Seen from within this context I think one can see at least some of the roots of secularism in our society. For once the division between an ascetic elite and the laity has been created, then Christian life will tend to become what we used to call 'the religious life'.
you are, I suspect, on to something very significant, and it is certainly worth pondering on your thinking here, as it leads in some very significant directions.

When you write about the sense in which it is the Church that has constructed the secular world, it points up one of the many important contributions which Orthodoxy brings to the notion of what it is to live the Christian life.

First we need to love Him and to have Faith; here our passions are directed rightly toward the end for which they were made. We know Him at first only through His Church and through the Apostles and Saints; as these, our Fathers and Mothers have loved Him, so we love Him, and in loving Him come to know Him more deeply. But without right-directed passions, and without love, we do not come so readily to accept the authority of the Church in the way we should; not with a nominal assent, but a real passion.

The Incarnate Word shows us our human nature as it is without sin; His body and His blood redeem our sinful bodies; in the process we are transfigured, and our passions are channelled where they were meant to go - into worshipping Our God. He knows us as we are; we are made in His image; in Him we are redeemed and made whole.

In chapter 10 of Book 2 of The Instructor St. Clement writes:

For nature never can be forced to change. What once has been impressed on it, may not be transformed into the opposite by passion. For passion is not nature, and passion is wont to deface the form, not to cast it into a new shape.
We are cast into that new shape by His transforming effect in our life; which is why we need to be in the great hospital that is the Church. But as you say rightly, Father, these are deep matters indeed.

In Christ,

John

[Audrey]

I was taught that a passion is anything (and it may not be obviously sinful) which has a hold on us. It is any undue attachment. We ought to be able to say of anything, 'I can manage without that'. We can try to break such attachments in little ways just by saying, 'no' or 'well it doesn't matter'. Father Zacharias says that dispassion - apatheia - is very advanced.

I am grateful to all of you for addressing my question and clarifying the definition of passions. Luckily after I posted my question I was reading Kallistos Ware's Intoduction to The Ladder of Divine Ascent and he gave some very helpful information about what passion and dispassion mean.

Andreas' quote is above because I think he brought up an interesting aspect of this discussion that was also brought up in some other posts. That is, passions can be undue attachments, not necessarily to things that are sinful in themselves. Chastity was brought up in another post as one example of asceticism, and to this my recent thoughts and questions relate:

I am wondering what a proper Orthodox understanding of marriage is in light of undue attachments. In one sense, Scripture affirms the two become one flesh, and that is basically the strongest attachment between human beings. On the other hand we are to avoid undue attachments. How does one avoid undue attachments in a marriage relationship? Is that possible? Or is a strong attachment warranted in this case? Marriage and sexuality are natural impulses; when do they become "passions" in the negative sense, given that passion and attachment are built into what marriage is inherently? I hope my words make sense. Again I really appreciate the feedback I've recieved. God Bless.

[Paul Cowan]

Hello Audrey:
Much of your quesitons are covered in another thread under marriage and one under sexuality though these are not the names just the themes.

Jesus said whosoever loves mother or brother more than me is unworthy of me. (paraphrased of course). That relates to spouses as well. God must have the primary place in our hearts and lives but NOT to the determinent of your partner. He even says not to give your money to the church in order to not give it to your parents. (family) Though Christ uses the word, "hate", he did not mean we had to hate our relations in order to love Him. He is Love so his instruction is to love one another but love Him first. Or love Him to the point of comparison is to hate all others. If you have a 1-10 scale loving Him is an 11 compared with a 1 to everyone else.



Marriage and sexuality are natural impulses; when do they become "passions" in the negative sense, given that passion and attachment are built into what marriage is inherently?


I think they become negative passions when we let them rule over us (abuse and/ or addiction) and prohibit the God given love and respect we have for our spouse. Yes, we are to have passions. or to be passionate to, in proper regard to our spouse, but when the passion starts to creep up the "scale" (above) to start to overshadow our Love for Christ, then it becomes a passion to be fought. Not to love your spouse less, just only in the right measure.

I love my wife with with all my heart. But she will be the first to tell you, I love Christ more than her. She also knows I will die for her or put myself in harms way to protect her. (At least I hope she does).

All that said, God must be first. Our spouse second, Children third, all others must take a spot between 0-.9 on the scale.

IMHO
Paul

[John Charmley]

Dear Audrey, Dear Paul,

Although the Fathers tend toward the view expressed by St. Clement of Alexandria when he wrote:
Apatheia is the fruit of eliminating desire completely they must not be mistaken for Greek stoics, for whom dispassion was the aim of life; as Christians this is not our purpose, and even when discussing Apatheia, the language of love is not avoided; indeed, given that we are called to love the Lord Our God with all our heart, how could any Christian avoid it? Neither love, nor charity, nor faith are matters where we are called to be dispassionate.

Clement tells us that the true Christian 'always loves God and is turned toward Him'. Our Lord tells us: 'Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy' (Matthew 5:7).

We must beware of falling into the trap of some in antiquity who aligned the Christian Faith with the views of the Greek stoics; the latter fail to provide what Christianity provides - namely an adequate account of why the soul acts; it acts because we are moved by the love of God, the fear of Hell, and compassion towards our fellows. As St. Augustine reminds us, 'fear and desire, pain and gladness' have an honourable place in the Christian life. If 'their love is right' then the 'passions are right in them.'

Our passions are 'right' when they are directed towards God and His work. St. Paul, like many of the Saints, is hardly dispassionate: he rejoiced with those who rejoiced, was troubled by fear, desired passionately to be with Christ, longed to see the Church in Rome, was jealous for the faithful at Corinth, and experienced 'pain in his heart'. St. Augustine concludes that the 'emotions and feelings that spring from love of the good and from holy charity' are not, as the Stoics held, 'morbid or disordered passions', but virtues.

St. Maximus, who tended to the view that the passions were not part of our first nature, also held that without the affections there could be no virtuous life, and that without love to hold us to God we would have no enduring relation to Him. I can conclude this is no better way that by quoting St. Maximus (Epistle 2)
In the devout person the passions become good when they prudently turn away from earthly things and put themselves at the service of heavenly things ... Desire brings about an insatiable spiritual movement that drives us towards divine things

A Christian view of apatheia has to incorporate these insights from the Holy Fathers, which show that, when right-directed, passions are what bring us to God and keep us there. Earth-bound passions are what we seek freedom from.

In Christ,

John

[Audrey]

What great quotes from the church Fathers. I appreciate the clarification. It helps me to understand that passion for God keeps us seeking God.