A speech which transcends spiritual knowledge

[Rick H.]

After reading a post by Andreas last night in which he was speaking about a speech or a language which comes from experience more than study in the following:




Fr Sophrony does write in a loose and seemingly unstructured manner which is his own language and so different from the usual style of theologians. But he also had to express himself in a way which would persuade contemporary theologians of the truth of what he experienced. He charged his followers, notably Fr Zacharias, to tell theologians on their own terms about his teaching. Nevertheless, he could also touch the hearts of non-theologians and change their lives, even those who did not read his books.



I was reminded of a piece by St. Maximos the confessor about the unity of the Trinity which is the Good that is beyond 'being' and which transcends all spiritual 'knowledge' (Various Texts on Theology, the Divine Economy, and Virtue and Vice: First Century [1.])

It is the principle of 'being' of this very Good, this very Union as he says together with its mode, nature, and quality of its 'being' that I think we see manifested in Fr. Sophrony. I think most would agree that what is presented above by St. Maximos is recognized in the speech of Fr. Sophrony through both his 'state of being' and his 'way of knowing.'

There have been many discussions here, on monachos, where the subject has been touched upon about the language of academic theology, the language of pastoral theology, the speech of the monastic, the speech of the lay person, and the various languages of various countries/regions. What I am presenting today has been touched upon somewhat in most of these conversations. And, this is a very subjective thing; however, I am wondering if any others have recognized this as being a type of common denominator where a genuine unity manifests itself which moves beyond the speech of the one who studies or the one who does not read books . . . specifically, a speech which can be heard through one regardless of whether he/she speaks as a monk or a scholar or a lay person, and regardless of whether it seems to be complete or is fully understood at the time, or not.

Ironically, this is an obscure thing that I am presenting as a topic for discussion. Possibly, some Orthodox converts can relate what I am saying as it relates to previous readings of some of the Holiness writers or some of the Roman Catholic mystics for example. And, it occurs to me that possibly some who have read my posts in the past about one's ontology modeling one's epistemology are suspecting that is where this is headed. But, it's not. I am simply wondering if any in this discussion community can relate to what is shared above.

[Brendan Funnell]

I hope I'm not misinterpreting you with my own thoughts.


Care must be taken in discursive analysis of non-discursive experience of mind lest all manner of superstition and idolatry seize hold of the mind on its return from the disjunctive experience. A disciplined rational mind prepared by theology, scripture and mentoring will find the transition easier and more sensible as an aspect of an ongoing life and maturing person than an undisciplined, unprepared mind.

That’s all theology is in the end, really: the discursive aspect of mind attempting to convey the non-discursive experiences of its life. Of course, non-discursive experiences of life are not to be considered automatically sacred ipso facto; yet all sacred experiences are ultimately non-discursive. The mystery always evades objective identification and classification, which is why the peotry of St John of the Cross is actually more effective and deeper than his commentary explaining the verses. Some have more skill in conveying the unsayable than others, often in what may seem a peculiar manner at first. I am reminded of the title of Anthony Rocca's study of the theology of St Thomas Aquinas as a useful phrase for thoeology overall: Speaking the Incomprehensible God.

Within this context of epistemological ascent, which has brought the mind through knowledge to silence, we see the specific function of faith: Gregory says that faith ‘unites the searching mind to the incomprehensible God’. Faith, then, is Gregory’s term for that faculty of union between mind and God.

Union, however, is not the only function faith performs; faith also mediates. Just as faith performs the function of union between mind and God, so faith mediates between mind and God. Faith mediates knowledge to the mind knowledge of a discursive sort: namely, that God is greater than any symbol by which he can be known. Hence, while we are in the context of an apophatic ascent of the mind, and faith is the zenith of this ascent, grasping in union the divine essence, the mind is not left with nothing. Faith gives the discursive mind something of what it ‘knows’; it is obliged, [as Canévet has stated,] to translate itself into discursive thoughts. The discursive mind receives ‘the likeness of gold’ , that is, the knowledge that God is greater than any symbol that can be known, but this is not ‘gold itself’ (the divine nature), that is, the non-discursive experience of, indeed union with, the divine nature by faith alone.
Laird, Martin – Gregory of Nyssa and the grasp of Faith – Union, Knowledge and Divine Presence [Oxford Early Christian Studies 2004 p. 73]

[Nina]

Rick Henry wrote:


A speech which transcends spiritual knowledge

=

Silence.

[Rick H.]

The above piece seems to have a decidedly western Christian mystical and theological feel to it. Although, and, I can't remember where; but, I have read this key thought/phrase somewhere else before (viz 'discursive analysis of non-discursive experience of mind') . . . possibly somewhere in the Buddhist section of my library--possibly Suzuki. I wonder if the author of the above has read "Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind"?

I read through this piece five times and have enjoyed it. However, while there are many roads running parallel to what I am stumbling towards in my first post, what I am speaking of is not so complicated. IT is more of a naturally occurring thing that does not discount faith or works, but neither does it point to either of these as being central or a condition. If anything, what I am writing above speaks more to a moving beyond apophaticism and cataphaticism, and transcending negations and affirmations. I guess this could be considered a kind of ascent . . . but again, this is a very subjective thing and based on my non-discursive experiences of life my question speaks to a naturally occurring, organic event which does not "grasp" anything or find its causality in anything other than Grace alone.

I appreciate reading some of the western mystics and even some of the Buddhist writers. And, I appreciated reading the above thought unit. Possibly, if I had the whole book, or at least the whole chapter that this came from I would appreciate it more.

[Rick H.]

This thread has really gone over like a led zepplin for the past two years, but I would just like for this 'spiritual nectar' to find a home here all the same:





". . . Voegelin's theory of consciousness allows him to avoid the deforming confusion wrought by Christian thinkers who draw a distinction between "ontological statements" (which purportedly describe the real truth of things) and "symbolic statements" (which are allegedly "only" evocative and rhetorical). But Voegelin would have none of this. Instead he would say that the truth of Christianity is eminently symbolic and not "ontological," a conclusion made not to destroy Christianity but to free it from a literalist deformation, for in the end one cannot separate "revealed truth" from symbol and myth. Transcendence can only be articulated in an analogical language replete with inevitable ambiguity. Such is the nature of human knowing in the realm of transcendence.

[D. W. Dickens]

I can see why you are playing around in this thread over here, because of our other ongoing conversation.
I should have mentioned my interest in Voegelin's approach. I think it's (using the vulgar term) crypto-Orthodox.

I've been calling this "incarnational language" in my own crude thinking. Just as the 2nd Person of the Uncreated Trinity incarnates in the Creation, so spiritual realities (ontological) participate in the fallen nature of the symbols that evoke them. Perhaps it would be better to call this "iconographic" language rather than "incarnational". (But in my crude mine it's the incarnational proposition that justifies the iconographic.)

Good stuff though.

[Vasiliki D.]

A speech which trancends spiritual knowledge?


= Silence.

100% agreed dear mystical sister. What do you think of this?

To me this speaks volumes also:

Love.

[Sean M.]

Paul seems to apply the rule in his epistles that if they are not ready for it( a particular message) then I will only give them what they are ready for.

I am thinking of 1Corinthians3:1-9, and 1Corinthians9:19-23. In other words the only way to reach your audience is to speak to them on their terms, or on their level. There are certainly people who are very gifted at doing this, but it is probably more to do with their recognition of what their audience is ready to understand, rather that what they are saying trancending spiritual knowledge.

[Rick H.]

That's a good point Sean about speakers and audiences, with the Apostle Paul as an example.

I think what I was stumbling towards in my first post was to point more towards a "mutual recognition" in a naturally occurring organic way . . . in a setting of interpersonal communication, and in this sense almost an "aha" moment, or a process of discovery of unity between 'birds-of-a-feather' for the lack of a better expression.

When this happens, there cannot not be anything but a transcending of all that divides us in Christ--this includes both our mere speech and our being.

[Sean M.]

That's a good point Sean about speakers and audiences, with the Apostle Paul as an example.

I think what I was stumbling towards in my first post was to point more towards a "mutual recognition" in a naturally occurring organic way . . . in a setting of interpersonal communication, and in this sense almost an "aha" moment, or a process of discovery of unity between 'birds-of-a-feather' for the lack of a better expression.

When this happens, there cannot not be anything but a transcending of all that divides us in Christ--this includes both our mere speech and our being.

Christ seems to give in his parables something that doesn't seem to be personal to any particular audience, in other words they seem to transcend all social and physical bounderies. In other words, a Buddist, a Christian or a Hindu could be capable of understanding the parables core message, mainly because the core message is intrinsically true.

[Nina]

A speech which trancends spiritual knowledge?

To me this speaks volumes also:

Love.

Of course! I am so sorry I did not see this until now. :)