Introduction to the passions 101 [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Rick H.

22-12-2009, 03:18 PM

I am hoping that this thread can provide a clear and easy to understand explanation of the Orthodox view of the passions. Hopefully, we can have a fruitful conversation here that can shed light on this topic (as opposed to suggestions for books to read).

In plain and simple language I am wondering if we could possibly describe the different kinds of passions (mind/soul/body), and list them and put them in categories and understand what is being said about these.

Part of this is based on a desire on my part to go back to square one in an attempt to try again (maybe one last time) to understand the Orthodox Way in just even 1/10th the understanding that I have of other Christian and Non-Christian faith traditions. Part of this is based negatively in frustration because I can usually understand different teachings of different ways when I apply myself, and I do not seem to be able to understand the different writings that I have found in Orthodoxy which are not clear about such things as good passions and bad passions, as well, it seems like other faith traditions and systems seem to be able to be very clear about what they are saying . . .

But, in books and articles that I have read, I usually come away with more questions than answers about the passions. A highly technical language is used, or words are used that can be defined differently, or it seems in some conversations the conclusion of the whole matter is that it is just all too mystical to understand (or answers akin to 'you must have the Orthodox mind in order to have the Orthodox mind').

It seems like on an introductory level we should be able to at least make some lists and put together some categories and use a plain and simple language to explain what we are saying about these categories.

In the past when I have talked with some financial guys or other technical guys who are talking 100mph, and I am not understanding at all what they are saying, I am not embarrassed to tell them that they are talking too fast and they are using words that I do not understand. So I give them the option to slow down and explain to me what these words mean and let me take notes and bullet point what they are saying or I part company with them. Sometimes this makes them (especially the financial guys) mad because when you slow them down and bullet point what they are saying you find out that they are counting on you being too embarrassed to do this and you find out that they are saying things that do not make sense or they are trying to camouflage extra annual service charges and they clearly do not have your best interests at heart.

So, I guess I am asking for help in understanding what is being said, about the passions, and if there are conflicting views about the passions in Orthodoxy I would like to know this too. I wouldn't think this would be too tough of an assignment, but from what I have read so far I can't seem to have a clear grasp of things. And, this is what is frustrating to me about Orthodoxy to be honest. It is not hard to read and grasp even on a survey level of the *simple* beliefs of other traditions, religions, and systems and just kind of go boom-boom-boom there it is . . . but, this does not seem to be the case in Orthodoxy. I learned how to find things in a fraction of the time on Monachos today, using the Google/Monachos search feature. Maybe I'm feelin' lucky still and would like to see if I can understand the Orthodox teaching of the passions in a kind of short course.

I wonder if it is possible to teach about the passions in plain *simple* language (without quoting others who do not use plain *simple* language and the arguing about the what they meant)? I wonder if there are fathers or saints or monks that we can quote in this process who use plain *simple* language?

I think this is one reason why other New Age and Non-Christian Eastern religions/systems are doing so well these days with seekers . . . they can share their *simple* beliefs in plain *simple* language.

Thank you.

Ryan

22-12-2009, 04:46 PM

I don't really know much about this myself- I look forward to the discussion!

I'll say though that the reason why Eastern religions appear so simple in the West is because the teachers dumb everything down... a lot. A large portion of the stuff passed off as "Zen" or "Taoism" or "Buddhism", in the US at least, has more to do with pop psychology and 20th century New Age thought than the actual religions as practiced in East Asia, India, Tibet, etc.

Buddhism is quite possibly the most complicated and systematic religion in the world! There are so many systems within systems, categories, lists, groups... For people trying to escape from dogma, Buddhism is a very odd choice. You'd be shocked at how many basic Buddhist concepts I've seen dismissed as extraneous "cultural baggage" in various places.

Rick H.

22-12-2009, 05:14 PM

Thanks Ryan. It's good to see you have an interest in this thread as well.

Otherwise, here is something I just found from a Greek Orthodox Deacon who writes online in a blog (maybe there is a springboard in this?):

What are Passions?

Passions (πάθος) are the emotions that control you.

Passions are no more than forces that dominate your soul and are etched into your brain and its neural structure, programing your automatic responses.

Mary

22-12-2009, 10:15 PM

Rick, great topic! I'd like to learn more about this too. In my simplistic understanding, passions, whether good or bad, are like a rash. You don't want them. They take over and keep you from functioning in a normal way, like you should. You want the heart to be in charge, and the mind and emotions submit to the heart. That's all that's in my nutshell. =)

I know I've read some related things, I'll post them as I find them.

Mary

Paul Cowan

23-12-2009, 04:41 AM

This from Orthodox.net (http://www.orthodox.net/confess/a-list-of-the-passions.html)

Where would you like to start Rick?

A LIST OF THE PASSIONS
by Saint Peter of Damaskos
The passions are:

harshness,
trickery,
malice,
perversity,
mindlessness,
licentiousness,
enticement,
dullness,
lack of understanding,
idleness,
sluggishness,
stupidity,
flattery,
silliness,
idiocy,
madness,
derangement,
coarseness,
rashness,
cowardice,
lethargy,
dearth of good actions,
moral errors,
greed,
over-frugality,
ignorance,
folly,
spurious knowledge,
forgetfulness,
lack of discrimination,
obduracy,
injustice,
evil intention,
a conscienceless soul,
slothfulness,
idle chatter,
breaking of faith,
wrongdoing,
sinfulness,
lawlessness,
criminality,
passion,
seduction,
assent to evil,
mindless coupling,
demonic provocation,
dallying,
bodily comfort beyond what is required,
vice,
stumbling,
sickness of soul,
enervation,
weakness of intellect,
negligence,
laziness,
a reprehensible despondency,
disdain of God,
aberration,
transgression,
unbelief,
lack of faith,
wrong belief,
poverty of faith,
heresy,
fellowship in heresy,
polytheism,
idolatry,
ignorance of God,
impiety,
magic,
astrology,
divination,
sorcery,
denial of God,
the love of idols,
dissipation,
profligacy,
loquacity,
indolence,
self-love,
inattentiveness,
lack of progress,
deceit,
delusion,
audacity,
witchcraft,
defilement,
the eating of unclean food,
soft living,
dissoluteness,
voracity,
unchastity,
avarice,
anger,
dejection,
listlessness,
self-esteem,
pride,
presumption,
self-elation,
boastfulness,
infatuation,
foulness,
satiety,
doltishness,
torpor,
sensuality,
over-eating,
gluttony,
insatiability,
secret eating,
hoggishness,
solitary eating,
indifference,
fickleness,
self-will,
thoughtlessness,
self-satisfaction,
love of popularity,
ignorance of beauty,
uncouthness,
gaucherie,
lightmindedness,
boorishness,
rudeness,
contentiousness,
quarrelsomeness,
abusiveness,
shouting,
brawling,
fighting,
rage,
mindless desire,
gall,
exasperation,
giving offence,
enmity,
meddlesomeness,
chicanery,
asperity,
slander,
censure,
calumny,
condemnation,
accusation,
hatred,
railing,
insolence,
dishonour,
ferocity,
frenzy,
severity,
aggressiveness,
forswearing oneself,
oathtaking,
lack of compassion,
hatred of one's brothers,
partiality,
patricide,
matricide,
breaking fasts,
laxity,
acceptance of bribes,
theft,
rapine,
jealousy,
strife,
envy,
indecency,
jesting,
vilification,
mockery,
derision,
exploitation,
oppression,
disdain of one's neighbour,
flogging,
making sport of others,
hanging,
throttling,
heartlessness,
implacability,
covenant-breaking,
bewitchment,
harshness,
shamelessness,
impudence,
obfuscation of thoughts,
obtuseness,
mental blindness,
attraction to what is fleeting,
impassionedness,
frivolity,
disobedience,
dullwittedness,
drowsiness of soul,
excessive sleep,
fantasy,
heavy drinking,
drunkenness,
uselessness,
slackness,
mindless enjoyment,
self-indulgence,
venery,
using foul language,
effeminacy,
unbridled desire,
burning lust,
masturbation,
pimping,
adultery,
sodomy,
bestiality,
defilement,
wantonness,
a stained soul,
incest,
uncleanliness,
pollution,
sordidness,
feigned affection,
laughter,
jokes,
immodest dancing,
clapping,
improper songs,
revelry,
fluteplaying,
license of tongue,
excessive love of order,
insubordination,
disorderliness,
reprehensible collusion,
conspiracy,
warfare,
killing,
brigandry,
sacrilege,
illicit gains,
usury,
wiliness,
grave-robbing,
hardness of heart,
obloquy,
complaining,
blasphemy,
fault-finding,
ingratitude,
malevolence,
contemptuousness,
pettiness,
confusion,
lying,
verbosity,
empty words,
mindless joy,
daydreaming,
mindless friendship,
bad habits,
nonsensicality,
silly talk,
garrulity,
niggardliness,
depravity,
intolerance,
irritability,
affluence,
rancour,
misuse,
ill-temper,
clinging to life,
ostentation,
affectation,
pusillanimity,
satanic love,
curiosity,
contumely,
lack of the fear of God,
unteachability,
senselessness,
haughtiness,
self-vaunting,
self-inflation,
scorn for one's neighbour,
mercilessness,
insensitivity,
hopelessness,
spiritual paralysis,
hatred of God,
despair,
suicide,
a falling away from God in all things,
utter destruction -- altogether 298 passions.

These, then, are the passions which I have found named in the Holy Scriptures. I have set them down in a single list, as I did at the beginning of my discourse with the various books I have used. I have not tried, nor would I have been able, to arrange them all in order; this would have been beyond my powers, for the reason given by St. John Klimakos: 'If you seek understanding in wicked men, you will not find it.' For all that the demons produce is disorderly. In common with the godless and the unjust, the demons have but one purpose: to destroy the souls of those who accept their evil counsel. Yet sometimes they actually help men to attain holiness. In such instances they are conquered by the patience and faith of those who put their trust in the Lord, and who through their good actions and resistance to evil thoughts counteract the demons and bring down curses upon them.

A LIST OF THE PASSIONS, Saint Peter of Damaskos

Ben Johnson

23-12-2009, 05:54 AM

I am hoping that this thread can provide a clear and easy to understand explanation of the Orthodox view of the passions. Hopefully, we can have a fruitful conversation here that can shed light on this topic (as opposed to suggestions for books to read).

In plain and simple language I am wondering if we could possibly describe the different kinds of passions (mind/soul/body), and list them and put them in categories and understand what is being said about these.

Part of this is based on a desire on my part to go back to square one in an attempt to try again (maybe one last time) to understand the Orthodox Way in just even 1/10th the understanding that I have of other Christian and Non-Christian faith traditions. Part of this is based negatively in frustration because I can usually understand different teachings of different ways when I apply myself, and I do not seem to be able to understand the different writings that I have found in Orthodoxy which are not clear about such things as good passions and bad passions, as well, it seems like other faith traditions and systems seem to be able to be very clear about what they are saying . . .
But, in books and articles that I have read, I usually come away with more questions than answers about the passions. A highly technical language is used, or words are used that can be defined differently, or it seems in some conversations the conclusion of the whole matter is that it is just all too mystical to understand (or answers akin to 'you must have the Orthodox mind in order to have the Orthodox mind').

It seems like on an introductory level we should be able to at least make some lists and put together some categories and use a plain and simple language to explain what we are saying about these categories.

In the past when I have talked with some financial guys or other technical guys who are talking 100mph, and I am not understanding at all what they are saying, I am not embarrassed to tell them that they are talking too fast and they are using words that I do not understand. So I give them the option to slow down and explain to me what these words mean and let me take notes and bullet point what they are saying or I part company with them. Sometimes this makes them (especially the financial guys) mad because when you slow them down and bullet point what they are saying you find out that they are counting on you being too embarrassed to do this and you find out that they are saying things that do not make sense or they are trying to camouflage extra annual service charges and they clearly do not have your best interests at heart.

So, I guess I am asking for help in understanding what is being said, about the passions, and if there are conflicting views about the passions in Orthodoxy I would like to know this too. I wouldn't think this would be too tough of an assignment, but from what I have read so far I can't seem to have a clear grasp of things. And, this is what is frustrating to me about Orthodoxy to be honest. It is not hard to read and grasp even on a survey level of the *simple* beliefs of other traditions, religions, and systems and just kind of go boom-boom-boom there it is . . . but, this does not seem to be the case in Orthodoxy. I learned how to find things in a fraction of the time on Monachos today, using the Google/Monachos search feature. Maybe I'm feelin' lucky still and would like to see if I can understand the Orthodox teaching of the passions in a kind of short course.

I wonder if it is possible to teach about the passions in plain *simple* language (without quoting others who do not use plain *simple* language and the arguing about the what they meant)? I wonder if there are fathers or saints or monks that we can quote in this process who use plain *simple* language?

I think this is one reason why other New Age and Non-Christian Eastern religions/systems are doing so well these days with seekers . . . they can share their *simple* beliefs in plain *simple* language.

Thank you. Seems like the trickiest one is rage. St. Paul wrote in Ephesians 4:26, ""Be angry, and do not sin": do not let the sun go down on your wrath." How does one be angry and not sin?

Paul Cowan

23-12-2009, 06:45 AM

Seems like the trickiest one is rage. St. Paul wrote in Ephesians 4:26, ""Be angry, and do not sin": do not let the sun go down on your wrath." How does one be angry and not sin?

Christ and the money changers comes to mind.

Rick H.

23-12-2009, 01:15 PM

That's super Paul. Jackpot! Thank you.

Now, I wonder if there are any other Texas websites that might have some first level subheadings for us? I have read of categories for the passions such as:

1.) Passions of the Body
2.) Passions of the Soul

A.) Passions affecting the appetitive faculty
B.) Passions affecting the incensive faculty
C.) Passions of the intelligence [and differing from these passions of the 'intellect' and 'reason' . . . although not sure what the distinction is here]

I.) Natural Passions
II.) Unnatural Passions

I wonder if there are any other categories that we could include with these before attempting to take from the list of passions from Saint Peter of Damaskos and categorize them? I wonder if there are any here who could help us to understand A.); B.); and C.) above?

What is the appetitive? What is the incensive? What is the distinction in C.)?

I have also read of "passions of the flesh," I wonder if this is the same as passions of the body in Orthodox thought?

Thanks Mary, it's good to see you here. At first I laughed when I read of passions as a rash, I don't know why that struck me as funny; but, then I decided that for the passions I struggle with that is a spot on analogy.

Anna Stickles

23-12-2009, 01:48 PM

I wonder if there are any other categories that we could include with these before attempting to take from the list of passions from Saint Peter of Damaskos and categorize them?

Ummm.... Rick did you read the bottom of the quote of St Peter....

I have not tried, nor would I have been able, to arrange them all in order; this would have been beyond my powers, for the reason given by St. John Klimakos: 'If you seek understanding in wicked men, you will not find it.' For all that the demons produce is disorderly. In common with the godless and the unjust, the demons have but one purpose: to destroy the souls of those who accept their evil counsel. Yet sometimes they actually help men to attain holiness. In such instances they are conquered by the patience and faith of those who put their trust in the Lord, and who through their good actions and resistance to evil thoughts counteract the demons and bring down curses upon them.Maybe this is not quite the way to approach this issue? Maybe when St Peter here refers to overcoming them by patience and faith this is something similar to the analogy we have about how government agents learn to recognize counterfeit money...

Rick H.

23-12-2009, 02:38 PM

Ummm.... Rick did you read the bottom of the quote of St Peter....

Maybe this is not quite the way to approach this issue? Maybe when St Peter here refers to overcoming them by patience and faith this is something similar to the analogy we have about how government agents learn to recognize counterfeit money...

Yes, I did read that Anna, and I can see for some how the approach similar to the government agents you mention would be best for them. But, for folks like me this would be a fine and pleasant misery and not a good approach at all. And, we are back to the one-size-fits all, or not, consideration again with what you have suggested. Possibly, for you and others you need the approach of Saint Peter of Damaskos. But, for me and those cursed to be like me, we desperately need the approach of Saint Gregory of Sinai in the form of:

'...The passions of the appetitive faculty are greed, licentiousness, dissipation, insatiateness, self-indulgence, avarice, and self-love, which is the worst of all. The passions of the flesh are unchastity, adultery, uncleanliness, profligacy, injustice, gluttony, listlessness, ostentation, self-adornment, cowardice and so on.'

-- On Commandments and Doctrines, in the Philokalia, vol. iv, 79, p. 226.

This is what I don't think many Orthodox folks, that I have met in person and online, understand at all. And, this is what I think is the source of much confusion and frustration in Orthodoxy today. What is the right way/path for one Orthodox is nothing but a complete confusion and/or hindrance for another. What is complete chaos/confusion (from the author of confusion) for one can be complete order/wisdom (easy to be entreated and from above) for another . . .

I wonder what Orthodoxy today would be like if more people would allow room for the varied teachings to be found in Orthodoxy of the past? But, that for another day and another thread.

Today we are trying to gain a toehold with Orthodox thought on the passions here in Introduction to the Passions 101.

It sure would be nice if we had a teacher for this class. I am not a fan of student led classes, but what is new?

Anna Stickles

23-12-2009, 02:55 PM

But Rick, You are taking St Gregory out of context. Why does he bother to list these passions this way? What is the main point of this section?

"But all intercommunicate, and all collaborate, the bodily passions with those of the appetitive faculty, passions of the soul with those of the incensive faculty, passions of the intellegence with those of the intellect, and passions of the intellect with those of the memory. (78)
...
In short all the unnatural vices commingle with the three faculties of the soul, just as all the virtues naturally coexist within them.

How eloquent is David when he speaks to God in ecstasy, saying, "They knowledge is too wonderful for me: I cannot attaint to it" (PS 139:6) for it exceeds my feeble knowledge and my powers. How incomprehensible, indeed is even this flesh in the way it has been constitued: it is triadic in every detail, and yet a single harmony embraces its limbs and parts...(79-80)

He does not make this list for the purpose of dividing and classifying, but for the purpose of showing how things that seem so different on the surface are all interrelated and can't be divided in the way you are attempting here.

Rick H.

23-12-2009, 03:25 PM

"But all intercommunicate, and all collaborate, the bodily passions with those of the appetitive faculty, passions of the soul with those of the incensive faculty, passions of the intellegence with those of the intellect, and passions of the intellect with those of the memory. (78)
...
In short all the unnatural vices commingle with the three faculties of the soul, just as all the virtues naturally coexist within them.

How eloquent is David when he speaks to God in ecstasy, saying, "They knowledge is too wonderful for me: I cannot attaint to it" (PS 139:6) for it exceeds my feeble knowledge and my powers. How incomprehensible, indeed is even this flesh in the way it has been constitued: it is triadic in every detail, and yet a single harmony embraces its limbs and parts...(79-80)

This really is perfect Anna; but, what you have shared is course material for a higher level course, Passions in Orthodox Thought 201. I think our purpose in doing this is not different that St. Gregory's purpose in dividing and categorizing. You have to do it this way for those who desire to even have a clue what is taught about the passions in Orthodox Thought.

Do you see what I mean? The quotes that you have supplied above are complete drivel and will cause nothing but drooling in the person of the reader who reads these without a prior knowledge of the divisions and classifications that are being used in these quotes.

For that matter, before we can even approach a conversation of approaches there has to be listing and categorizing just as St. Gregory has listed and categorized the passions initially! Otherwise, all the one has who desires to gain a knowledge of the passions is nonsense and meaningless words as in the above quotes.

Try to read even the first sentence in the above quotes from the point of view of one who does not know what the following are:

"the bodily passions;" "the appetitive faculty;" "passions of the soul;" "the incensive faculty;" "passions of the intellegence;" "those of the intellect, and passions of the intellect;" "those of the memory."

For the one who does not know what these things are he might as well read the following:

Chicken, gas can, bagel, miserable flute player!

There would be the same level of understanding in both of these quotes.

I can feel my passions taking over right now as I even type this out. :0)

But, how can there not be a defining of terms and a categorizing of passions initially? If there is not there is only a state of stupor created in the true sense of the word for those who would read such quotes as the above.

Sometimes there is a knowledge that comes by osmosis (BTW I agreed with your post about that recently Anna). But, there is also a time for teaching on an academic level and using standard laws of teaching (like St. Gregory is doing here).

This really is perfect:

In short all the unnatural vices commingle with the three faculties of the soul, just as all the virtues naturally coexist within them.

I think we really do need to define our terms and categorize these here in the beginning, or else we need to get a rush shipment of drool cups on order.

Michael Stickles

23-12-2009, 04:19 PM

He does not make this list for the purpose of dividing and classifying, but for the purpose of showing how things that seem so different on the surface are all interrelated and can't be divided in the way you are attempting here.

I think that may be a bit oversimplified. After all, in biology, we know that the various systems of the body "are all interrelated" and can't be fully and properly understood in isolation; but that does not mean that classifying them into various systems (circulatory, lymphatic, etc.) is a meaningless exercise; rather, it is an important first step in understanding the interrelations. I don't see why that wouldn't also be true of the passions.

First things first, though - let's start with defining "the passions" to at least a basic degree. After all, if you wanted to identify the types of Ciliatea in the categories Ciliatea Holotrichia, Ciliatea Peritrichia, Ciliatea Suctoria, and Ciliatea Spirotrichia, it would really help to first know what on earth a Ciliatea is, don'tcha think? As Miyagi said in The Karate Kid, "First, learn stand - then learn fly. Nature's rule, Daniel-san, not mine!"

Given that the current English usage of "passion" does not appear to coincide with the Patristic usage, I think that's even more essential. Trying to talk about something you don't understand is one thing, but trying to talk about something you think you kind of understand - but really don't - is far worse. I think I vaguely remember reading a pretty clear and easy-to-understand definition somewhere, but I'll have to go back and dig it up because if I try to do it from memory I'll botch it.

In Christ,
Michael

P.S. - Just so you're not left hanging, Ciliatea is "a subclass of ciliate protozoa, which generally have a simple, uniform distribution of cilia on their cells." And if that helped much, you remember way more biology than I do.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

23-12-2009, 04:25 PM

Much like the comments going on on another thread we need to see that we can only learn by doing and by experience. Impatience over this or not engaging oneself with it will only end up with our knowing very little.

In my time I have seen an interesting thing in Orthodoxy: no matter how much time a person gives to reading the books they end up learning nothing until they devote an appropriate amount of time to the activity within the Church that the books refer to.

Thus for example for a person to learn 'how to do the services', how to read them, to learn their order, etc they have to give of themselves to the actual doing of the services for at least one year. Absolutely nothing: books, tables drawn out as to the structure of the services, or whatever, can replace this. In fact (and this is what is so interesting) it is as if a mind block goes up to grasp even the basics until doing & experience begins.

Isn't this then a fundamental lesson about life in the Church? God gives us everything when we engage with Him in an active life of self giving. And really- this is what the Church should be teaching: in other words we should (and do) teach the flock: 'don't try to cheat the process that God has set up. Instead work with it and you will gather fruit many fold'.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Mary

23-12-2009, 04:43 PM

Isn't this then a fundamental lesson about life in the Church? God gives us everything when we engage with Him in an active life of self giving. And really- this is what the Church should be teaching: in other words we should (and do) teach the flock: 'don't try to cheat the process that God has set up. Instead work with it and you will gather fruit many fold'.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Thank you, Fr Raphael!

This is a great morsel to chew on.

Rick.... there is a some kind of classification in St John Klimacus - the Ladder - but it's been a while since I've delved into it. But I do recall, how he mentions a certain passion, and what is the 'mother' of it, or what its 'children' are. I found that really, really helpful, because, what we normally see in our lives, are the passions that exhibit themselves externally. But it really is helpful to know, what the root cause of it is, so we keep digging deeper, even if we seem to have things under control on the surface.

And yes - a rash - that's what my passions are like. They flare up and take up all my attention and focus, and they sure do make me irritable! =)

Michael Stickles

23-12-2009, 04:48 PM

Much like the comments going on on another thread we need to see that we can only learn by doing and by experience. Impatience over this or not engaging oneself with it will only end up with our knowing very little.

In my time I have seen an interesting thing in Orthodoxy: no matter how much time a person gives to reading the books they end up learning nothing until they devote an appropriate amount of time to the activity within the Church that the books refer to.

While true, I think it's still normally essential to have at least some knowledge of what is going on. For example, when I was first introduced to the concept of "the passions", there was no "activity" given in relation to them except to "fight against the passions", and it's kind of difficult to fight effectively if you don't know quite what the enemy is.

All I had to go on was the English usage of the term, so "fight against the passions" - in conjunction with hearing the term apatheia used for the state aspired to - left me with the impression that I was being told to work at rooting out any and all vestiges of emotion, humor, or feeling whatsoever and become totally apathetic. Fortunately, I'd read enough lives of saints by then to have a good idea that this just wasn't right.

In Christ,
Michael

Rick H.

23-12-2009, 04:50 PM

First things first, though - let's start with defining "the passions" to at least a basic degree . . .

Given that the current English usage of "passion" does not appear to coincide with the Patristic usage, I think that's even more essential.

This sounds good. I think Fr. Dcn. Matthew wrote not too long ago about work that needs to be done in terms of explaining the difference between the Patristic usage of words and (in our case) modern English usage.

And, it is Fr. Dcn. Charles blog that I have quoted from above. He is Greek Orthodox in a church in South Carolina. He really has some good helps on his blog, and an article titled, "What are the Passions" can be found at:

http://orthodoxwayoflife.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-are-passions.html

This is where I quoted in an above post the following:

What are Passions?

Passions (πάθος) are the emotions that control you.

Passions are no more than forces that dominate your soul and are etched into your brain and its neural structure, programing your automatic responses.

But, there is much more to read in this article. He has much to offer in this blog and it is easy to see that he has a pastor's heart with his efforts there.

But, while I would still like some help with the terms listed in the above posts, I think it would be great to see if we could define the passions to a basic degree here.

What about the definition that Fr. Dcn. offers above?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2KHnJxC2IFM/SmdTCnIlnEI/AAAAAAAAAaA/2fnxYpPqdXs/s400/Picture+8.png

Rick H.

23-12-2009, 04:53 PM

Rick.... there is a some kind of classification in St John Klimacus - the Ladder - but it's been a while since I've delved into it. But I do recall, how he mentions a certain passion, and what is the 'mother' of it, or what its 'children' are. I found that really, really helpful, because, what we normally see in our lives, are the passions that exhibit themselves externally. But it really is helpful to know, what the root cause of it is, so we keep digging deeper, even if we seem to have things under control on the surface.

It would be great to have this teaching from the Ladder here Mary. I don't have a copy of this on the shelves to pull down, hopefully someone that does have a copy can help us out with this.

I guess it is about time for me to get my own copy!

Rick H.

23-12-2009, 05:02 PM

While true, I think it's still normally essential to have at least some knowledge of what is going on. For example, when I was first introduced to the concept of "the passions", there was no "activity" given in relation to them except to "fight against the passions", and it's kind of difficult to fight effectively if you don't know quite what the enemy is.

All I had to go on was the English usage of the term, so "fight against the passions" - in conjunction with hearing the term apatheia used for the state aspired to - left me with the impression that I was being told to work at rooting out any and all vestiges of emotion, humor, or feeling whatsoever and become totally apathetic. Fortunately, I'd read enough lives of saints by then to have a good idea that this just wasn't right.

This makes the point crystal clear here! There has to be some level of awareness (even if it is dumbed down) in order to even be in the right ball park. Yes, in this case, *fortunately* there was reading of the lives of the saints in order to avoid a kind of Autistic Orthodoxy under the guise of fighting against an unknown enemy. That would make a good chapter in "In Praise of Folly." Why, at times, is it like pulling hen's teeth to get some help with even some very basic teachings in Orthodoxy?

Herman Blaydoe

23-12-2009, 05:27 PM

Rick H.

23-12-2009, 05:58 PM

I'm currently on the road and do not have direct access to my regular source documents, but I am having a basic conceptual problem here. Where to start? Pick a Father, any Father, which noted Orthodox writer has NOT written on the passions?

Perhaps we start with St. Theophan and The Path to Salvation?

That would be great Herman. I'm not sure if you are talking about a contribution in the way of a definition of 'passions' or help with some of the above terms, or possibly something for a 200 series class down the road; but, I would love it if you can help us with this via. St. Theophan or the other Fathers when you get back.

This thread is just over 24 hrs. old, so hopefully the current lack of teaching and teachers here won't be a trend that will continue.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2KHnJxC2IFM/SmdTCnIlnEI/AAAAAAAAAaA/2fnxYpPqdXs/s400/Picture+8.png

Mary

23-12-2009, 06:01 PM

From the book: Bread & Water, Wine & Oil, by Archimandrite Meletios Webber (http://www.stjohnsbookstore.com/node/539)

The classic patristic expression of the relationship between thoughts and passions and the effect of one on the other is as follows: First of all, a thought comes to exist in the mind of a person, seeking that person's attention and awareness. There follows a period of interaction, during which the person dabbles with the possibilities the thought brings. The third stage is consent, where the person voluntarily gives in to the thought - sometimes hoping to stop the process immediately thereafter, only to discover that once embarked upon, this is very difficult. The fourth stage is captivity, in which the person is dragged further from the way of righteousness towards spiritual destruction as a result of the thought. The fifth stage, the goal of the thought, is labeled passion; here the person is entrapped, and sinful action is inevitable.I think this description of the process of how a passion comes to be, also defines it in a way. Also in the same chapter, Fr Meletios talks about the mind as being the source of emotion and feeling, which is different from western thought.

However, in a less demonstrable way (the Fathers do not really talk about emotions), the mind is also the source of emotion and feeling. These originate in the mind as logismoi which are then felt, in a reactive way, in the physical body; these reactions are what we call feelings. Feelings, then, in fallen man are as broken and unreliable as the thoughts that give them birth. I also like how he differentiates between various kinds of thoughts:

It is necessary to make a clear distinction between thoughts that we have when we make an effort to think; thoughts that have us, which seem to emerge automatically; and thoughts that come from an altogether deeper awareness which we may call discernment or intuition. ..... The distincion between them has very important practical implications for our spiritual development. Bear with me, I know these are long quotes. But at the end of this next quote, he defines passionlessness, in a very clear way:

... most people can recognize the difference between using thought and being used by thought. The ability to think logically plays an important part in our fundamental role as God's cocreators. However, the stream of automatic thoughts which almost all of us recognize in ourselves needs to be regarded with some suspicion, as, according to the experience of the Church, it originates from a mind that is broken, divorced from the heart. It is these thoughts (logismoi) of a person that eventually turn into passions - those behaviors that cut us off from God. They stand in opposition to passionlessness, which the Fathers envisage as a state on the path to spiritual healing. Passionlessness (in Greek apatheia) does not mean a lack of love or concern, as it tends to sound to Western ears, but rather a state of being unaffected by the passions as defined above.There's so much more in that first chapter about how the mind works and why it's 'divorce' from the heart is such a problem. I don't know how much of it to type out. I like the whole thing. =) In fact, I have a hard time getting to the remaining chapters of the book, because i really like chapter 1. =)

Owen Jones

23-12-2009, 06:13 PM

Pick a particular passion, say, anger. Then monitor your thoughts for a full day. Do nothing without also monitoring your thoughts and notice the anger when it wells up. Examine it closely. What happened right before the anger? What thought entered the mind right before the anger welled up? Then examine that. You must first know what is actually going on inside before you an take any action. Conceptualization comes later. You don't need a theory of it to begin. In fact, that gets in the way. Then you go to a priest and confess the anger and its cause, and you ask him for spiritual guidance to guard against this demon. There is an excellent description of the stages of the passions in the glossary of the Philokalia. Use it. It becomes clear pretty soon that the anger doesn't come from nowhere. The theory is that the demon is taking advantage of an already weakened state. So go to that weakness. Examine it closely. Not in a Freudian analytical sense. Just empirically. Orthodox theology is empirical.

Of course the goal for all Orthodox is unceasing prayer. This is both the cause and result of the death of the passions. So just making a confession is not good enough. Unceasing prayer is not just a physical action. It's more like a condition, so it pervades both waking and sleeping hours. Only a few attain to this for a number of reasons -- certainly not I. But we can all learn in steps to pray with the heart. But I don't want to be anybody's teacher!!!!

Fr Raphael Vereshack

23-12-2009, 06:39 PM

Michael Stickles wrote:

I think it's still normally essential to have at least some knowledge of what is going on. For example, when I was first introduced to the concept of "the passions", there was no "activity" given in relation to them except to "fight against the passions", and it's kind of difficult to fight effectively if you don't know quite what the enemy is.

What I mean is that such things as the books, the concise explanation, etc should never be stand ins for the life of self sacrifice & experience.

It's a bit like glasses: they're only of use in terms of looking at something.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Michael Stickles

23-12-2009, 07:19 PM

I found the one I was looking for - it's in Kyriacos Markides' The Mountain of Silence (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5223) (link goes to the Monachos book review).

"Father Maximos" starts out with a definition of a logismos:

Let us say that a logismos is a thought of special quality and power intensity. ... When negative logismoi manage to enter into your spiritual bloodstream they can affect you in the same way that a needle, full of poison, penetrates you and spreads the deadly substance throughout your body. Your spiritual world becomes contaminated and you are affected on a very deep, fundamental level. Your entire spiritual edifice can be shaken from its very foundations. Sometimes the intensity of a single logismos is so great that human beings under its spell may feel totally helpless.

Then he goes into the stages in the evolution of a logismos (pages 124-130 in the paperback). Father Maximos identifies five stages, which match up with those Mary shared from Archimandrite Meletios' book:

The assault stage, where the logismos first attacks our mind;
The interaction stage, where a person examines and considers the logismos;
The stage of consent, where one consents to commit the act the logismos urges them to do;
The stage of captivity, where the act becomes a habit; and
The stage of passion or obsession, where the logismos becomes an entrenched reality within the consciousness or nous.
(I initially mistyped "consciousness" as "consciousmess" - which seems kind of appropriate, actually)

He expands upon the fifth stage:

The person becomes a captive of obsessive logismoi, leading to ongoing destructive acts to oneself and others, such as in the case of a compulsive gambler. The holy elders have warned us that when we become dominated by such passions it is like giving the key of our heart to Satan so that he can get in and out any time he wishes. We see a lot of our brothers and sisters struggling desperately to overcome their obsessive passions and addictions but without much success. They are fully aware that what they do is self-destructive. They are capable of reasoning with clarity of mind, but their heart is captive. They cannot eject from themselves that negative energy that possesses and controls them.

The next chapter goes into strategies for dealing with logismoi. This gets me thinking - in line with Father Raphael's admonition towards practical action over theoretical curiosity, perhaps it might be better to start with the general means of uprooting existing passions, and of preventing establishment of new passions (such as resisting logismoi), rather than starting with a taxonomy of the passions? Then, if certain types of passions require different kinds of "medicine", the taxonomy would become more relevant. Thoughts?

In Christ,
Michael

Anna Stickles

23-12-2009, 09:38 PM

I noticed that the many of the desert fathers recommend the kind of active approach that Owen talks a little about, but that most of the modern writers like Father (although I guess it is now Bishop) Maximos, Elder Paisios, and Elder Porphyrios advocate more or less a passive approach of disdaining the passionate thoughts when they start to take hold and turning to prayer.

There are other things that seem to have changed over time. Is this a result of the accumulated ascetical experience of the Church, or just individual differences as Rick suggests? The spiritual life is an art, and it is clear that in any art not only does the individual learn through experience, but also as various "star pupils" arise and discover better ways to practice this art these discoveries gradually spread and become more or less universal. Has the same thing happened in the Church?

Owen Jones

23-12-2009, 10:44 PM

I think when we are just learning to recognize the fact that we even have these thoughts it takes a lot of active work. Then, as we become more experienced in recognizing them in the early stages, perhaps then the "disdain" can work. The list of 5 stages, btw, is right out of the Philokalia glossary. But my own view is that you never want to stop revealing them. It is the revelation of thoughts, not just the sins they produce, that is most helpful. I have heard that there are some monasteries that still practice this hesychast method.

Rick H.

23-12-2009, 11:04 PM

. . . perhaps it might be better to start with the general means of uprooting existing passions, and of preventing establishment of new passions (such as resisting logismoi), rather than starting with a taxonomy of the passions? Then, if certain types of passions require different kinds of "medicine", the taxonomy would become more relevant. Thoughts?

This sounds good to me Mike, not the least because as we have in place already:

1.) The list of individual passions found in Orthodox thought provided by Paul

2.) The categories of passions found in Orthodox thought provided by me

3.) And, especially a view towards how these all work together and in this sense we are heading provided by Anna

maybe we have gone far enough for now and to consider what Mary has shared above and your last post is a good place for us to go.

And, just for the record this is all very practical and helpful for me in terms of just becoming aware of what is going on, let alone what we may apply in terms of a remedy. In fact, in Mary's last post and Mike's last post I have gained a great awareness that I didn't have a few hours ago, and I can recognize the truth of what is shared in these posts based on my own personal experience, in my own personal progress. But, lest we think ignorance of the passions is a virtue, I hope none hold back with what they know. I would really like to know what some of the words used in the categories mean. I have a feeling about what is being said, but it is only a guess and only based on intuition. I don't see why there needs to be an admonition about understanding the definitions of words that are used even if it is considered theory at that point. But, I think I know what Fr. Raphael is saying, and I agree with him, which is echoed by a very famous Yogi:

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."

--Yogi Berra

Or, possibly there is the old issue behind the issue involved here in terms of let's not break this down to the point where some might start thinking well what do we need the Orthodox Church for if we can apply these general principles discovered by the Orthodox hermits and monks. Someday in another thread I would like to study a little about what seems to be a tension from the days of old between the hermits who withdrew from the local visible communities and the bishops who remained. And, this is interesting in and of itself as we consider the spirit of the men who withdrew from the communities who discovered these things that we are trying to learn about now. Maybe there is a question behind a question in this thread as in others.

On one hand, I have learned that on some deep levels monks teach monks what they need to know and they are not inclined to broadcast their teachings, but to keep them specific and applied to specific persons. And, this is exactly because what is appropriate for one monk may be completely inappropriate for another monk, they don't want to broadcast general principals. And, I can respect that . . .

But for the rest of us, I'm not sure how general means of uprooting existing passions will compare to particular means for uprooting particular passions (like Gluttony in John Cassians 'Institutes' which is very specific toward that particular passion), but a consideration in and of itself could make it clear very quickly whether there is any value in taking time to categorize and work with categories for most folks.

And, with my ammo bag obviously being empty for this consideration in the turn it is about to take, I think I will spend some time re-reading what has been written in today's flurry of activity and see if we can continue as you have suggested Mike.

I guess we do have the threat looming over our heads of Herman making a contribution to this thread when he gets back home to his source docs. I wonder if you have any quotes from some of the dessert solitaries for us on this Herman. I'd love to read a post from the library of Herman's Hermits.

Okay, let's see what happens with a consideration of "general means of uprooting existing passions, and of preventing establishment of new passions."

Rick H.

23-12-2009, 11:06 PM

Seda S.

24-12-2009, 12:27 AM

Dear Rick

If you are interested in the classifications of passions, then, I think, it would be very helpful to 'start from the beginning', from the earliest sources dealing with this subject, so that one may see it in its development. I would recommend to read, first of all, the Gnostikos and Praktikos by Evagrius of Pontus. You'll find in them both about those three powers of soul you mentioned in one of your posts and, of course, about eight sinful thoughts (passions/demons). He says that about the three powers of soul he was taught by his holy teacher Gregory, that is, St Gregory the Theologian. As for 8 thoughts, as far as I know, Evagrius is the first author to write about them. I think, somewhere in the Internet they have put the English translation of those writings by Evagrius. He has also another writing, dedicated solely to those eight thoughts (if I'm not mistaken, it was published in the Philocalia). Of course, also St Nilus, John Cassian and many fathers of later times have written on this matter.

I like the teaching about 8 cardinal passions or sinful thoughts (or demons), because they remind us of the Lord's words about 8 unclean spirits that enter and live in man (Matt 12:43-45).

St John of Damascus also writes about passions and explains what passion is in his "Exact Exposition of Orthodox faith" (Book II, Chapter 22). Here he follows Nemesius of Emessa. Generally, St John's (and not only his) anthropology is affected much by Nemesius' "On the nature of man" which is the first attempt of forming some system of Christian anthropology. And Nemesius' sources are mainly the ancient Greek philosophers.

You asked somewhere questions concerning the three powers/parts/aspects of soul. Since those three parts of soul are called sometimes more simply, reason, anger and desire, the reason, in this context, corresponds to the intelligent part or power, anger corresponds to the incensive part, and the desire corresponds to the appetitive part. From the Armenian sources I can add here that the Fathers 'located' the first part in head, the second - in heart, and the third - in reins. That is why monks, according to the explanation of many ancient fathers (starting perhaps again from Evagrius), girdled that part of their bodies against impure desires.

I don't remember the name of the book or maybe books in English which I read many years ago and took out from there some information for myself on some sheets of paper and I didn't mention the sources :(. I think, one of the members will perhaps remember that or those books dealing with this kind of material. I can now give you the information I took out from that book.

According to St John of Damascus (I don't know in which of his books it is written)
Passions of the intelligent part: unbelief, heresy, folly, blasphemy, ingratitude.

Incensive: heartlessness, hatred, lack of compassion, rancour, envy, murder.

Appetitive: gluttony, greed, drunkenness, unchastity, adultery, uncleanness, licentiousness, love of material things and the desire for empty glory, gold, wealth and the pleasures of the flesh.

According to another classification, again John of Damascus:

Bodily passions (passions of body): gluttony, greed, over-indulgence, eating in secret, general softness of living, unchastity, adultery............ (sorry, they are so many that I'll complete them another time, God willing).

Passions of soul: forgetfulness, laziness, ignorance. These give way to: impiety, false teaching or every kind of heresy, blasphemy, wrath, anger, bitterness, irritability...... (I'll continue next time, God willing).

I can add also that John Damascus, most probably, took the above thought about forgetfulness, laziness and ignorance- those three intensifiers of other passions, from St Mark the Ascetic's letter to Nicolas.

I haven't written in my papers who taught this. Misuse of the intelligent power is ignorance and stupidity. Misuse of the incensive and desiring powers is hatred and licentiousness (sexual immorality). The proper use of these powers produces spiritual knowledge, moral judgment, love and self-restraint.

St Maximus the Confessor also wrote on those three parts of soul in his Chapters on Love. I don't know where but St Gregory Palamas also writes on this.

Seda S.

24-12-2009, 12:31 AM

http://www.ldysinger.com/Evagrius/00a_start.htm

This is the link to 'Praktikos', 'Gnostikos' and other writings by Evagrius in English.

Rick H.

24-12-2009, 01:04 AM

Dear Seda!

Thank you so much, this is exactly what I was looking for!

After reading your post above and visiting the link you supplied in your second post I am very happy. Thanks very much for these most excellent presents.

Mike! and Mary! Ryan! and others, I can see with just a quick skim of the Praktikos that many of our questions are answered there in a fuller way.

Thank you so much for your post Seda and for the Practikos and Gnostikos. If you have any time in the future to continue sharing more from the lists above that would be very good.

Yes, start from the beginning as you say.

Such a blessing. I am looking forward to slowly savoring what you have shared with us over the next few days.

Thank you,
Your Brother in Christ Rick

Anna Stickles

24-12-2009, 01:49 AM

This thread is just over 24 hrs. old, so hopefully the current lack of teaching and teachers here won't be a trend that will continue.

You know Rick, this brought to mind kind of a neat analogy.

God is our teacher; the Church is our classroom. We read the books we are given and do the "homework" and this allows us to grow in our knowledge. God has given us assistant teachers and classroom assistants (ie our spiritual fathers or others who we can look up to and ask for advice and help) to be our individual tutors and He has also given us study groups - our friends and peers in Christ that we can get help from.

The church is run more like many homeschools I'm familiar with then the public school, since we don't get grades, and can't fail. We are simply handed our assignments back with suggestions for how to keep improving. Except for the very young in Christ, God doesn't go in for giving out material rewards because this builds ego and is counterproductive to receiving the grace which enlightens us and frees us from the passions.

Maybe we often get in our mind exactly what we want from God, or what kind of help we expect, so then when it doesn't show up in the fashion we imagine we completely miss God's providence for us. But of course here we are and it seems that the little classroom discussion is going well.

Of course just as in a real school, the amount of effort we put into studying and doing our homework determines how well we grasp the material. And if due to the passions we goof off and get distracted God is patient knowing our weakness. "where sin abounds grace abounds all the more". Speaking of means of uprooting the passions, the Church teaches that grace is ultimately the only answer so maybe the discussion of "uprooting the passions" needs to include comments on developing the prerequisites for attracting grace and the place of faith and hope.

One of those things I see the modern elders mentioning quite a bit is that passions are not just an individual but a corporate problem. Hopefully we can get to this subject in this series of posts as things move along and talk about the consequences of this in practical terms. I'll have to look up a few quotes.

Rick H.

24-12-2009, 02:16 AM

Well, I seem to be responding to almost every post here . . . but, I don't care--this is good--'our little classroom discussion really is going well.'

That is a great analogy Anna, thank you! The word picture that you have provided brings a hefty level of peace with it as I read it and reread it. Really very good all the way around.

And, you are providing more for the future here which is much appreciated. I have made a mental note of this post here on the second page of this thread so we can hopefully pick up with what you have mentioned in the last two paragraphs. Maybe I will learn in this thread later that to be intrigued is a passion, but for now my interest is clearly aroused by the thought of passions as a corporate problem.

Yes, the Teacher, the assistant teachers, the classroom, our homework, and last but not least our study groups . . . thank you.

Owen Jones

24-12-2009, 02:13 PM

With respect, St. Paul provides us with the foundation for the Patristic anthropology.

Rick H.

24-12-2009, 03:11 PM

Mary,

I was just rereading your last post this morning and after going through it again I took a look at some reviews for:

Bread & Water, Wine & Oil: An Orthodox Christian Experience of God
By Meletios Webber

And, then I keyed this up for part of my next Amazon order (I wait until I get enough in the cart for free shipping before I order--it's only $10.85 there . . . maybe this is my chance for a copy of the Ladder).

This looks like a book that would be right up my alley, and I appreciate the reviewers who repeatedly commented on his clear and easy to follow style of communication in this book. As one reviewer said:

"As a catechumen in the Orthodox Church with training in Classical Greek and an academic bent, I've read dozens of books on Orthodox practice written in specialist terminology and abundantly footnoted. But few books have impressed me as much as Fr. Meletios' work here, which casts greater light on Orthodoxy for the Western convert with the most simple of tones."

And, what really struck a chord with me was a quote by Father Webber in another review:

"We (Orthodox Christians) identify ourselves most clearly by being quite sure who we are not."

As simply as he has stated this, I can really relate to this.

Otherwise, I see what you mean about the first four steps and the fifth stage (where the thought becomes an action) work together toward a definition of passion.

I appreciate what the Father teaches and says about differentiating between the thoughts too. This speaks clearly to a consideration in this thread in terms of the value of simple teaching of Orthodox doctrine on matters like this and the practical implications for progress/spiritual development of the learner (and the one ignorant of Orthodox teaching/thought!)

I wonder if this one by the Father got by some of us here as he wrote:

It is necessary to make a clear distinction between thoughts that we have when we make an effort to think; thoughts that have us, which seem to emerge automatically; and thoughts that come from an altogether deeper awareness which we may call discernment or intuition. ..... The distinction between them has very important practical implications for our spiritual development.

This teaching/distinction has very important practical implications for our spiritual development. I appreciate that quote above by the Yogi; but, as well I am fully persuaded that ignorance is not a virtue at any stage of the passions.

And, I'm all for a philosophy of unknowing or whatever you want to call it as it regards either the identity of an Orthodox Christian or Mystery as the Presence of God Himself as Father Webber has also written in his book:

In the East, on the other hand, a mystery is an area where the human mind cannot go, and where the heart alone makes sense, not by `knowing,' but by; being.' The Greek word mysterion leads you into a sense of `not-knowing' or `not-understanding' and leaves you there. All a person can do is gaze and wonder; there is nothing to solve."

but, theory and practice are not antithetical in Orthodox thought, are they? And, knowing the Father translates "heart" from 'nous' in his work, his 'being' is his 'knowing' and we see again that one's being models one's knowing . . . or in this Eastern thought we see one's ontology models one's epistomology. And, there is a good kind of gazing and wondering; but there is a bad kind too.

And, on this <<<<RYAN>>>>, if you are reading this post, I wonder if you took in what Mary shared from the Father about the mind as being the source of emotion and feeling??? I wonder if this caught your attention as the Father wrote:

However, in a less demonstrable way (the Fathers do not really talk about emotions), the mind is also the source of emotion and feeling. These originate in the mind as logismoi which are then felt, in a reactive way, in the physical body; these reactions are what we call feelings. Feelings, then, in fallen man are as broken and unreliable as the thoughts that give them birth.

I have a few books in the naughty section of my library that teach this exact same thing as it relates to your previous comment:

I'll say though that the reason why Eastern religions appear so simple in the West is because the teachers dumb everything down... a lot. A large portion of the stuff passed off as "Zen" or "Taoism" or "Buddhism", in the US at least, has more to do with pop psychology and 20th century New Age thought than the actual religions as practiced in East Asia, India, Tibet, etc.

FWIW, Father Webber has a doctorate in psychological counseling, but I wonder if anything there caught your attention?

So, while I am looking forward to recieving my own copy of this book Mary, if you have time to share any other quotes that you think are appropriate, that would be great.

Rick H.

24-12-2009, 03:18 PM

With respect, St. Paul provides us with the foundation for the Patristic anthropology.

With respect too, Owen, what post/point is this comment referring to please?

Mary

24-12-2009, 08:21 PM

David Hawthorne

25-12-2009, 04:30 PM

I'm currently on the road and do not have direct access to my regular source documents, but I am having a basic conceptual problem here. Where to start? Pick a Father, any Father, which noted Orthodox writer has NOT written on the passions?

Perhaps we start with St. Theophan and The Path to Salvation?

For me, the most helpful and comprehensive Father on this subject is St. John Cassian. In the Institutes he has a book for each of the eight vices describing them and their cures. And in the Conferences, the fifth one with Abba Serapion deals in depth with the vices, how they are related and lead to another and their cures as well.
The Ancient Christian Writers series is the easiest translation to read I have seen (and both the Institutes and Conferences are much more complete here than they are in the Eerdman's series).

Rick H.

25-12-2009, 08:33 PM

Mike, everyone in my house is passed out after presents and eating today, so I had some time on my hands and decided to look at Seda's post again (Thanks again very much Seda!). I printed it out and took my pens and markers to her post and then opened up the glossary in a volume of the Philokalia and layed it next to her post. In the glossary of Philokalia there are three words/phrases to look up that speak to our conversation:

1.) Appetitive Aspect of the Soul [this includes information on the incensive aspect and the intelligent aspect, as well as a mention of the natural and the unnatural]

2.) Dispassion

3.) Passion

and, I hope you don't think I'm jerking you around here, because I agreed with your suggestion about considering a "general means of uprooting existing passions, and of preventing establishment of new passions." . . . but, I am wondering if you are aware of the different views of the passions in the History of Orthodox thought?

After reading through these above entries in the Philokalia, I was reminded that I have read these before and that there seems to be different schools of thought about the passions . . . and possibly this should be looked at even before considering the above "general means of uprooting . . ."

Mary? Ryan? Anna? Seda? or Others? Possibly, you have knowledge of what seems to be differing views on the passions in Orthodoxy, in the Fathers? For example from the glossary of the Philokalia:

VIEW: A

Some feel the passions are evil and unnatural (alien to a mans 'true self'), a disease of the soul, and are to be uprooted and eradicated.

VIEW: B

However, some feel the passions are impulses originally placed in man by God and are fundamentally good, and while they have been distorted by sin, they are NOT to be uprooted or eradicated; but, instead they are to be educated, transfigured, and used positively.

I wonder if there could be any conversation on this to help us to further have a good perspective on the Passions in the History of Orthodox Thought? At the very least we see that a look towards a general means may provide such a thing, but this only for the Orthodox who subscribe to VIEW: A.

Mary

25-12-2009, 10:25 PM

VIEW: A

Some feel the passions are evil and unnatural (alien to a mans 'true self'), a disease of the soul, and are to be uprooted and eradicated.

VIEW: B

However, some feel the passions are impulses originally placed in man by God and are fundamentally good, and while they have been distorted by sin, they are NOT to be uprooted or eradicated; but, instead they are to be educated, transfigured, and used positively.

I wonder if there could be any conversation on this to help us to further have a good perspective on the Passions in the History of Orthodox Thought? At the very least we see that a look towards a general means may provide such a thing, but this only for the Orthodox who subscribe to VIEW: A.

Sorry Rick, I'm new to this passion thing. But off the top of my head, it seems to me, that the second view is working with the definition of 'passion' as 'emotions' and not as the end result of having entertained sinful thoughts. Emotions are not evil. Just as thoughts are not evil. However they are misguided, and when we tend to let them control us, instead of us controlling them, they get us into all sorts of trouble. So, the healing that takes place in us, through the sacraments of the church, is aimed at putting our thoughts and emotions (functions of the mind) - under the control of the heart. (this is a very simple summary of the angle that Fr Meletios is working with in his book mentioned above).

So, neither thoughts nor emotions have to be eradicated, but their misguided use, by the mind, has to be eradicated. That's how I see it, from what I've understood so far, from ch 1 of Fr Meletios's book. Will post related quotes in a while.

Seda S.

26-12-2009, 01:58 AM

In the glossary of Philokalia there are three words/phrases to look up that speak to our conversation:

1.) Appetitive Aspect of the Soul [this includes information on the incensive aspect and the intelligent aspect, as well as a mention of the natural and the unnatural]

2.) Dispassion

3.) Passion

and, I hope you don't think I'm jerking you around here, because I agreed with your suggestion about considering a "general means of uprooting existing passions, and of preventing establishment of new passions." . . . but, I am wondering if you are aware of the different views of the passions in the History of Orthodox thought?

After reading through these above entries in the Philokalia, I was reminded that I have read these before and that there seems to be different schools of thought about the passions . . . and possibly this should be looked at even before considering the above "general means of uprooting . . ."

Mary? Ryan? Anna? Seda? or Others? Possibly, you have knowledge of what seems to be differing views on the passions in Orthodoxy, in the Fathers? For example from the glossary of the Philokalia:

VIEW: A

Some feel the passions are evil and unnatural (alien to a mans 'true self'), a disease of the soul, and are to be uprooted and eradicated.

VIEW: B

However, some feel the passions are impulses originally placed in man by God and are fundamentally good, and while they have been distorted by sin, they are NOT to be uprooted or eradicated; but, instead they are to be educated, transfigured, and used positively.

I wonder if there could be any conversation on this to help us to further have a good perspective on the Passions in the History of Orthodox Thought? At the very least we see that a look towards a general means may provide such a thing, but this only for the Orthodox who subscribe to VIEW: A.

Dear Rick
I looked in that glossary, and they have brought an example from St John Climacus to show that the passions were considered evil by some Fathers. Since they brought the example from that Father, I think, it is not very correct to consider there were two different views about passions. Sorry, this is just my understanding of the matter and I'll try to explain in my poor English what I mean.

It is important to understand how, in what meaning, this or that Father used the word 'passion'. The same John Climacus in that same book, the Ladder (Step 26, 155), when he says that those who say there are natural passions are not correct, since God is not the cause or creator of evil, also speaks about natural properties that men turned into passions. Then he brings examples to show how this or that 'natural property' (which others would call 'natural, blameless passions') through misuse becomes 'passion' (= sin, not natural passion). He speaks about anger, as something natural for us, the natural desire of glory, the natural pride etc, which are not 'passions' (in St John's understanding and usage of that word) but are natural and planted in us by God. So, it is OK to be angry but in the right way, that is, with Satan and not with our brother; it is OK to desire glory, but not of this world, but the heavenly glory etc etc. (I don't have this book in English to just quote from it, that is why I gave the contents of it briefly and maybe used not very correct terms. Sorry for that.)

This shows that in reality there are not two opinions on this matter, but different usages of the same word by different fathers.

In my last posts I wasn't able to write all that I wanted to say on this matter. Now I'll try to continue, as much as I am able. The Holy Scripture teaches: " And you shall take heed to do as the Lord your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right or to the left" (Deu 5:32). "Turn not aside to the right hand, nor to the left, but turn away your foot from an evil way" (Pro 4:27). You remember, of course, those three powers of soul. Each of them has their virtue (usually called prudence, fortitude and temperance). You may read these names in the aforementioned book of Evagrius (in Practikos or Gnostikos, I don't remember in which exactly), and Evagrius says that he learnt it from his teacher St Gregory (the Theologian). (I mention this, because some people think that the names of these virtues are originated in later Western scholasticism, while this is not true.) There is also a fourth virtue, called justice, which is called either the virtue of the whole soul, or again of the intelligent part of the soul. It is justice that doesn't allow those virtues to become vices through excess (right) or deficiency (left) (see, for example, Maximus the Confessor, Fourth Century, 97. see also about six movements producing sin, in Peter of Damascus' 'A treasury of Divine Knowledge', The Sixth Stage of Contemplation, Philokalia, vol. III, p. 134). When justice is in 'order', everything in human being is natural and correct, while when it is damaged, the virtues of the parts of soul deviate to the right and left. And this makes one fall into sin. Sometimes the sins of soul are generally called sins of the right, and those of body - sins of the left. But in regard to the three parts of the soul and their virtues, those sins of the right and left, that is of excess and deficiency, are cunning (right) and mindlessness (left), impudence and cowardice, greed and meanness, debauchery and injustice. But there are also foolishness, indignation and lasciviousness as the opposite vices of the above-mentioned virtues. (Frankly speaking, I don't know, if I have written all these terms correctly in English, as I'm translating some words from my mother tongue. But I think, you will understand what is what). The names of the four virtues are correct.

You know, I don't know why Fathers have made this complicated structure for sins or passions (call as you like). They have taken many things from the ancient philosophers. For example, about six movements (about which Peter of Damascus mentions) Philo the Jew (or of Alexandria) wrote. Perhaps it is natural for the human being to have the desire to make order in everything. And maybe it is good. I just know that for some, all of this may seem very artificial, but for some perhaps will be 'food of mind'.

I haven't forgotten that I left the lists of passions or sins (by St John of Damascus) unfinished. I can continue, but do you really need it? I thought maybe it was not important at all.

I want to finish this messy post by a thought of St Abba Dorotheos that nothing cleanses us from passions better, than taking care of the sick. I don't remember his exact words, sorry. One might paraphrase this thought also in this way: Nothing cleanses us from passions better, than compassion and mercy. Because the Lord Himself taught us to have our lamps always full of oil. I wrote this last paragraph for the balance between knowledge and love :)) (Turn not to the right and to the left... ;))))).

Seda S.

26-12-2009, 08:32 AM

Dear Rick

I started to search in the Philokalia and found that they have translated the names of the 4 cardinal virtues, their vices and 8 vices (those of excess and deficiency) differently. I found those names in the writings of Sts Maximus the Confessor and Gregory of Sinai. By the way, I also found in which treatise St John of Damascus wrote the names of the passions (sins, vices) of soul and body. It's his "On the virtues and the vices" (read from the beginning, it is also in the Philokalia). You may now compare the names I wrote in the previous my post with the names in the following quotations, though perhaps in other translations you'll find other terms used for the same things. However, if you understand what is what, it is not difficult to recognize the same things clothed by different terms (since they are somewhat conventional).

St Maximos the Confessor (II Century, 79)

The principal vices - stupidity, cowardice, licentiousness, injustice- are the image of the 'earthy' man. The principal virtues - intelligence, courage, self-restraint, justice- are the 'image' of 'heavenly' man.Gregory of Sinai (On Commandments and Doctrines, Warning and Promises, on Thoughts, Passions and Virtues..., 87)

The cardinal virtues are four: courage, sound understanding, self-restraint and justice. There are eight other moral qualities that either go beyond or fall short of these virtues. These we regard as vices and so we call them... Exceeding or falling short of courage are audacity and cowardice; of sound understanding are cunning and ignorance; of self-restraint are licentiousness and obtuseness; of justice are excess and injustice, or taking less than one's due...

Rick H.

26-12-2009, 03:40 PM

. . . it seems to me, that the second view is working with the definition of 'passion' as 'emotions' and not as the end result of having entertained sinful thoughts.

I looked in that glossary, and they have brought an example from St John Climacus to show that the passions were considered evil by some Fathers. Since they brought the example from that Father, I think, it is not very correct to consider there were two different views about passions.

It is important to understand how, in what meaning, this or that Father used the word 'passion' . . .

This shows that in reality there are not two opinions on this matter, but different usages of the same word by different fathers.

Dear Mary, Dear Seda,

Thank you for your responses here (and thanks for making me feel guilty for shopping at Amazon Mary! I would rather have the Abbot pray for me instead of Amazon that's for sure! :)

And, it looks like you are both sharing with me that we are dealing with words and the meaning of words and that there are not two views of the passions in Orthodoxy.

And, in this admittedly sometimes I struggle with things that are very *simple*. Sometimes I think I can grasp things that are complicated very quickly, but I loose about 100 points on my IQ with things that are *simple* at times, and it takes someone like Herman the Pooh to come in and bring me up to speed on what's being said. So, honestly, I'm worried that this might be the case here.

But, with that said, it seems very clear to me that when we look at the definition for "Passion" in the glossary of the Philokalia it is being used to mean nothing other than "Passion" and it is not possible to understand what is being said in any other way than the fact that there are two views of the passions to be found in Orthodoxy.

For that matter Mike, I wonder what you think about the "definition" of the word 'Passion' as it is presented there in the first sentence of the entry?

To me it is clear that there are two views of the passions in Orthodox thought even if we completely ignore the reference to St. John Climacus given. Let's look closer at what has been written there please ( I am using View: "A" and View: "B" just for the purpose of discussion to keep it clear what we are considering and to keep us from having to type out what is presented in these views each time they might be referenced):

View: "A"

"Many Greek Fathers regard the passions as something intrinsically evil, a 'disease' of the soul . . ."

View: "B"

"Other Greek Fathers, however, look on the passions as impulses originally placed in man by God, and so fundamentally good . . ."

So, I am definitely open for correction here, but this looks pretty clear to me.

How can we read this in terms of what "Many Greek Fathers" think in comparison to what "Other Greek Fathers" think and conclude anything else other than there are two views?

--Rick the open for correction pooh

Seda S.

26-12-2009, 05:00 PM

Dear Rick
I'm sorry to say I'm unable to change my opinion already expressed, though in very poor English. Already from the first posts of this thread, from the one, for example, which presented a long list of 'passions', one could clearly see that that word is used in two meanings: as disease of soul, that is vice (that is why we can freely call those numerous 'passions' also 'vices' and 'sins'), and as natural 'impulses' or call it as you like. If it were not so, how could we speak about blameless passions both in us and in our inhominate God Jesus Christ? It is natural to have fear, to feel sad..., but being coward and falling into despondency... is not natural for a perfect, whole and healthy human being. If we think that there were fathers who considered these natural 'passions' evil, then what is man at all, and how could they be also in our Lord in whom there was not and is not any sin?

The glossaries... what can I say?... Maybe the authors were unable to completely explain what they really wanted to, in a few words.

M.C. Steenberg

26-12-2009, 05:30 PM

Dear friends,

I rarely, rarely ever make reference to things I've written elsewhere (in fact, I don't think I've ever done so), as I always feel that discussions should be just that: discussions, not the 'importing' of words from elsewhere. However, I not long ago wrote something that speaks directly to this topic - and since it's not available in electronic form, I wonder if you will all kindly permit this one infraction of my own rule, and allow me to relay a brief portion of it here (the one that directly relates). I promise not to do this more than once in every 2,754 posts.

The following comes from 'Taking Stock of our Struggle', in The Orthodox Word 44.263 (2008).

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Understanding the nature of the passions

A right orientation towards the Kingdom of God sets the heart in the only position whereby it may accurately struggle in a Christ-like way in this world. Not only does it come to see its foe more directly—that is, the external spiritual realm which wages battle against the righteous—but it also is given the perspective to understand its own internal warfare. That is, an orientation of life past the sinful confines of this world, toward the eternity of the Kingdom, allows man to see his fallen self more authentically, discovering in himself those things which prevent him from conformity to Christ and growth into this Kingdom. These are what the Fathers call ‘the passions’, and a right perception of them is essential in the ascetical struggle of the Christian.

Literally, the passions are those impulses of the soul, of the heart (and thus, also of the body), which it suffers ‘passively’ (hence the Greek pathos). The Fathers understand this passive suffering in a negative sense: the passions are bound up in the domination of the soul by something other than the heart borne up in the love of God. The soul comes to be dominated by experiences which might, in another form, have a positive character (such as love, which can be divine; or anger, which can be righteous [See note 1]), but which in a particular manifestation become negative through their stripping the soul of its freedom—making it a slave to a stronger force. So the soul, rather than governing man, becomes a passive captive to those impulses which are the actual forces that rule his life; and its movements and desires, rather than being directed towards God and the attainment of His Kingdom, are misdirected towards baser things.

There is a tendency, in our day, to confuse the passions with all expressive sentiment or emotion—reflective of the way ‘passion’ is used in English to mean intense outpourings of oftentimes good emotions such as love, zeal, etc. Given such usage, the exceedingly negative view of the passions in the Fathers gives some cause for concern; and the patristic description of the highest spiritual state as that of ‘dispassion’ is taken to imply a de-emotionalized rejection of all human feeling. This view makes it hard to receive the words of one of the great early writers on the spiritual life: ‘Dispassion and humility lead to spiritual knowledge. Without them, no one can see God’ (St. Hesychius the Priest, On Watchfulness and Holiness, 67; in the Philokalia, vol. 1, ed. Ware, p. 174).

‘Passion’, however, refers particularly and specifically to the passive domination of the person by the impulses of body and soul, and in this, the patristic testimony to the passions constitutes an important affirmation of the authentic relationship of creation and transgression. That which God creates, which includes the full feeling capabilities of man such as his ability to love, feel joy and sorrow, is itself intrinsically good [See note 2]; yet sin works its destruction precisely by misusing that which is good, to negative effect. Evil is not a substance or independent reality: it is the willful misuse and distortion of God’s sacred creation. Identification of the passions does not denigrate the goodness of the human creature in all its emotive reality; rather, it affirms that holiness precisely by showing that it is the perversion of soul and body that makes it an oppressive force. It is the domination by them that is evil, that must be combated.

Coming to understand the passions rightly is a critical need in the Christian life—and this is nowhere truer than in our present world, where the desires and impulses of the mind are often conceived of as good in themselves. ‘Love’ is understood, too often today, as an impulse or compulsion, a longing for that which ‘feels good’; ‘joy’ is equated to a frivolous happiness; ‘satisfaction’ is paralleled to sensual and intellectual gratification. Such assertions are at times quite bold-faced in our world; at other times they are less obvious, buried within systems of self-awareness and self help that give them a more scientific context and nuanced definition, but which fundamentally assert the same ideas, however refined. When this is the context of man’s understanding of his inner life, and the way its goods and negatives are determined, it becomes ever more difficult to make any real progress in the ascetical contest—for the Christian vision of man is one in which those things that the world often calls ‘good’ in his emotional state, are in fact known to be deceptions, traps, and pitfalls in the spiritual struggle.

The Church’s view of the passions begins with the affirmation that the sinful condition of man makes them a real presence deep in the inner life of each person. As St. Hesychius writes:
Many passions are hidden in the soul; they can be checked only when their causes are revealed (St. Hesychius, On Watchfulness and Holiness, 72; p. 175).
This is to say, the condition of this world in sin (the heritage of man’s transgression) is one in which the natural impulses of the human soul, united to its body, are not ordered as they ought to be. Rather, they are ordered toward the gratification of desires—intellectual as well as physical, overwhelmed by self-love and the longing for satisfaction—which is the source of their dominating power. This is made apparent from the account of man’s first transgression in Eden, where the right ordering of creation was upset through sin and rebellion. In Adam and Eve are exemplified the nature of the passions as disfigurations of natural impulses:
Eve is the first to teach us that sight, taste and the other senses, when used without moderation, distract the heart from its remembrance of God. So long as she did not look with longing at the forbidden tree, she was able to keep God’s commandment carefully in mind; she was still covered by the wings of divine love and thus was ignorant of her own nakedness. But after she had looked at the tree with longing, touched it with ardent desire and then tasted its fruit with active sensuality, she at once felt drawn to physical intercourse and, being naked, she gave way to her passion. All her desire was now to enjoy what was immediately present to her senses, and through the pleasant appearance of the fruit she involved Adam in her fall (St. Diadochus, On Spiritual Knowledge, 56; p. 269).
By succumbing to sensory desire, rather then reigning over it by God’s dominion, the heart of man is ‘distracted’ from its true orientation in God and His Kingdom. St. Diadochus’ text gives blatant testimony to the power of this impulse and this distraction to take control over the human heart: Eve falls quickly prey to it, and her desires become passionate—that is, they are made actors and leaders, and she herself is made passive. She is dominated. She no longer has full reign over her mind and her life; her desire changes, her impulses are oriented anew. This is the nature of man’s passionate state, and of the passions themselves. And this makes the inner condition of man one in which the apparently ‘natural’ desires of the soul are in fact passionate desires—that is, they are distortions that dominate, rather than pure realities that can be used to bear good fruit. So what appears as man’s natural condition in this life is in fact his passionate state: the ‘norm’ is domination, enslavement, debasement.

The Church understands this ‘normal’ condition of passionate existence to be one which pervades precisely through its apparent normality. Certain passions are stirred up as specific, discrete things against which battle must be waged—rather than an overarching context of man’s whole existence—when the spiritual life is taken seriously, and the Christian attempts to live a life ordered toward God’s Kingdom. There is, then, a direct connection between the activity of the passions and the ascetical, spiritual life. The more seriously one takes that life, that struggle, the more the passions are aroused out of a general context of man’s existence, to specific impulses of rebellion that attack him. This is emphasized in another important text by St. Diadochus:
Spiritual knowledge teaches us that, at the outset, the soul in pursuit of theology is troubled by many passions, above all by anger and hatred. This happens to it not so much because the demons are arousing these passions, as because it is making progress. So long as the soul is worldly-minded, it remains unmoved and untroubled—however much it sees people trampling justice underfoot. Preoccupied with its own desires, it pays no attention to the justice of God. When, however, because of its disdain for this world and its love for God, it begins to rise above its passions, it cannot bear, even in its dreams, to see justice set at naught (ibid., 71; p. 277).
St. Diadochus draws attention to the fact that the usual condition of the human person is one that is ‘worldly-minded’, making little or no progress in the spiritual life because it is preoccupied with the things of the world and with its own desires [See note 3]. This is the condition of one’s whole life being passionate, enslaved to the overarching domination of the soul and body by worldly-bound deception. The person, whose whole life is thus bound up and defined by passionate enslavement, loses his perspective on himself, on his neighbor, and above all on God.

Serious attentiveness to the ascetical struggle, however, draws one out of this worldly-minded focus toward a vision of the Kingdom; it draws the person into the love of God and out of this condition of complete domination by the passions. In this ascent and struggle, the passions move from being the utterly familiar and hence almost unnoticed context of man’s complete domination, to specific manifestations of the rebellion of soul and body. His focus on the Kingdom causes a focusing of the passions, their concentration. Since they are no longer given free reign over his whole person, to be the basic context of his whole existence, they become concentrated in focused impulses. St. Diadochus emphasizes that chief amongst these, particularly in the early stages of ascetical struggle, are anger and hatred—the very impulses that rebel against the love of God being engendered in the heart.

This is, as it were, the ‘natural’ reaction of the human creature to ascetical growth. But it is also conditioned by the enemy of man, who uses the concentration of the passions that come about through serious spiritual struggle as a foundation on which to build additional hindrances to authentic growth (as noted by St. John Climacus: ‘War against us is proof that we are making war’; Ladder, Step 4: ‘Obedience’, p. 115). This the demons accomplish, in the teaching of the Church, through the drawing of the heart toward the passions; the ‘sowing’ in the heart of passions by which it can again be captivated, and the encouragement and strengthening of those passions to which the person proves particularly vulnerable.

This engagement of Satan and the demons with the focusing of the passions in a person who seriously engages in the ascetical life, is drawn out in numerous writings among the Fathers. Perhaps most clearly and simply, it is seen in a saying of Abba Matoes in the Egyptian desert:
Abba Matoes said, ‘Satan does not know by what passion the soul can be overcome. He sows, but without knowing if he will reap, sometimes thoughts of fornication, sometimes thoughts of slander, and similarly for the other passions. He supplies nourishment to the passion which he sees the soul is slipping towards’ (Abba Matoes, Saying 4; in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers—Alphabetical Collection, ed. B. Ward, p. 143).
Such fathers understand the demons to engage with the natural arousal and concentration of the passions that occurs when man takes serious stock of his spiritual struggle; and, as such, that struggle is not simply against the interior impulses and appetites of the soul and body, but also against these foes who aggravate and accentuate those passions, seeking new ways to make man captive to dominating powers. Yet this is a desperate act: the demons, even the devil himself, do not attack with clear vision. Abba Matoes conveys that they simply attack willy-nilly, aggravating and sowing whatever passions they can, hoping one or another will take hold over the soul; and when they see that happening, they nourish that passion and feed it, so it may lead to others.

We see, in this, something of the coherence of the vision of the Fathers as to man’s condition in this world. When man lives his live orientated toward the Kingdom, the passions take new hold in active ways; and the full character of the struggle man wages against these passions can only be understood when he also acknowledges the full, active reality of the demons. If he does not acknowledge the Kingdom and order his life according to it, man might never step out of the enslaving lethargy of worldly contentment. If he does not acknowledge the passions, and understand them rightly as perversions of natural impulses so that they dominate and enslave, man can make no progress in identifying them rightly and accurately. And if he does not acknowledge the presence, reality and activity of the demons, man cannot seriously work against the passions in himself, since he will not know how they are being sown and strengthened, and whom one must oppose in order to defeat them.

It is for such reasons that the Christian today must work with renewed vigor to recapture in himself the right vision of these essential characteristics of the life in Christ. This world opposes each of these quite directly: it does not acknowledge the Kingdom of God; it rejects even more potently the reality of demonic foes; and it has lost all sense of a proper distinction between natural impulse and dominating, passionate impulse—much less a concerted awareness of the true contours of the soul’s fallen impulses and desires. At times it approximates a distinction between good habits and self-perceptions as opposed to bad, which seems to echo in some ways the Orthodox view of the passions; yet inasmuch as such distinctions regularly aim to assist in discovering or creating a better self-definition, they continue to fall prey to the radical self-will of man and establishment of the self as the highest truth and greatest good—itself a passion identified by the Fathers.

The Christian attempting to live Christ’s life in such a context, unless he overcomes it by adhering to the Church’s authentic vision of such realities, works against himself. And so it is that in the modern day we must seek, as every age has had to seek, to approach the ascetical life in an obedience to divine truth.

Notes:
1. Though on the exercise of ‘righteous anger’ the Fathers and other patristic-era writers advise extreme caution. Evagrius of Pontus speaks of it as the tool by which the passions and demons are confronted, following the psalmist’s command: ‘Be angry, and do not sin’ (Psalm 4.4). In such a case, this anger directed toward the passions and demons becomes ‘a useful medicine for the soul at times of temptation’ (Evagrius of Pontus, On Discrimination 15; in the Philokalia, vol. 1, ed. Ware, p. 47). Yet Evagrius immediately goes on to note that there is a ‘demon of anger’ also, suggesting that the line between righteous and demonic anger is hard to negotiate. Most often the Fathers speak of anger as a passion, and thus a thing sinister, to be avoided; see the extended comments to this end in St. John Cassian, On the Eight Vices: ‘Anger’; in the Philokalia, vol. 1 (ed. Ware, pp. 82-87).

2. Though sorrow is a sacred reality in man as a condescension of God to human sin: Godly sorrow is that repentant spirit of contrition and compunction in the face of sin that mirrors God’s own sorrow over man’s transgression (cf. 2 Corinthians 7.10). Sorrow cannot be seen to be the intended experience of man in his first-created condition, before his sin, in the same manner as, for example, love; yet it remains true that the creature bearing God’s image has in its capabilities the potential to sorrow over sin as does the Lord Himself.

3. As is noted often in the patristic heritage, this is evidence of man’s ‘appetitive power’—the power of his desiring, longing, seeking—being disfigured. The powers of his soul are orientated awry.

Michael Stickles

27-12-2009, 12:18 AM

For that matter Mike, I wonder what you think about the "definition" of the word 'Passion' as it is presented there in the first sentence of the entry?

To me it is clear that there are two views of the passions in Orthodox thought even if we completely ignore the reference to St. John Climacus given. Let's look closer at what has been written there please ( I am using View: "A" and View: "B" just for the purpose of discussion to keep it clear what we are considering and to keep us from having to type out what is presented in these views each time they might be referenced):

View: "A"

"Many Greek Fathers regard the passions as something intrinsically evil, a 'disease' of the soul . . ."

View: "B"

"Other Greek Fathers, however, look on the passions as impulses originally placed in man by God, and so fundamentally good . . ."

So, I am definitely open for correction here, but this looks pretty clear to me.

How can we read this in terms of what "Many Greek Fathers" think in comparison to what "Other Greek Fathers" think and conclude anything else other than there are two views?

Sorry for the delay - I've not been online much since my last post.

My first thought is that I would not get too worked up about the glossary definition(s). Glossaries are intended as quick-references for definitions, and usually assume that the person using them already has a decent familiarity with the subject matter. That's not necessarily where some of us are (that "some" includes at least me).

Second, the conception I had of defining "the passions" really isn't affected by the Fathers having two different definitions for them (assuming that's true - I haven't read enough to know the details). I was thinking primarily that we need to determine what we mean when we say "the passions". Based on what we had discussed up to that point, it looked like we were going to come to something similar to view "A". If we instead converged on a definition more like view "B", we'd want to be talking about purifying the passions, not eradicating them. What we don't want is half of us meaning view "A" and the other half meaning view "B".

My personal suggestion would be to use the definition which Fr Dcn Matthew, Fr Maximos and Archimandrite Meletios all expressed in various ways:

‘Passion’, however, refers particularly and specifically to the passive domination of the person by the impulses of body and soul, ...
The stage of passion or obsession, where the logismos becomes an entrenched reality within the consciousness or nous.
The fifth stage, the goal of the thought, is labeled passion; here the person is entrapped, and sinful action is inevitable.

This definition focuses on the soul being passive in the face of dominating impulses. The other definition seems to focus on the impulses themselves, and the fact that they are corruptions of something created good by God. I suspect (though I can't be sure due to my lack of reading) that if there are indeed two groups of Fathers who seem to use the word "passions" differently, that the difference is probably in focus and emphasis rather than in understanding of the issues involved (in other words, I doubt they're actually contradicting each other).

In Christ,
Michael

Mary

27-12-2009, 12:32 AM

... and thanks for making me feel guilty for shopping at Amazon Mary! I would rather have the Abbot pray for me instead of Amazon that's for sure! :)

My pleasure! I love exercising my evil side. ;)

View: "A"

"Many Greek Fathers regard the passions as something intrinsically evil, a 'disease' of the soul . . ."

View: "B"

"Other Greek Fathers, however, look on the passions as impulses originally placed in man by God, and so fundamentally good . . ."

So, I am definitely open for correction here, but this looks pretty clear to me.

How can we read this in terms of what "Many Greek Fathers" think in comparison to what "Other Greek Fathers" think and conclude anything else other than there are two views?

--Rick the open for correction pooh

May I toss out another idea? Fr Mathew has probably answered this already. I've read his post twice but haven't soaked it all in yet. Sorry. Shallow brain cells overflow quickly.

Here's another thought:

Why do things have to be either good or bad? What if they're neutral?

Thoughts and emotions - functions of the mind. Neutral. Neither good nor bad. But the way they are used, can be good or bad. If given too much importance, or not enough - things go out of balance.

Many things in the material world are also neutral. For example - money. And yet, the Church seems to speak more in favor of poverty. That doesn't mean it's good to be poor and bad to be rich.

Just some stray thoughts to add to your confusion. Forgive me Rick.

in Christ,
Mary.

Owen Jones

27-12-2009, 02:40 PM

A couple of thoughts. First, while the Fathers, and especially the Desert Fathers, do not seem to think of thoughts themselves as evil, they are an obstacle and are seen as inherently unruly. So the goal of the hesychast discipline is to expunge all thoughts through unceasing prayer. The results are experienced and observed and documented. BTW, my understanding is that the phrase "Kingdom of God" should really be translated, "rule of God." If so, this would make a lot of sense. There is a lot of technical stuff about mental prayer and so on in the great body of hesychast literature that has and is being translated. But the technical knowledge is the result of practicing the discipline. The technical knowledge is then passed on but is not intended to stand on its own. So one must practice this stuff to know anything about it...We can all benefit from this tradition without becoming monastics or living in a cave somewhere -- someone coined the term "desert in the backyard" to speak to this issue. The problem is that there is precious little institutional support for this. Typically, what we are told to do is confess our sins before receiving communion, or at least on some regular basis (I think in the Greek Church in the U.S. the typical minimum rule is once per year.) But what of the thoughts that precede the sins? After confessing the same sin over and over again, I found it necessary to examine the thoughts, and reveal them, and this helps to expunge them. I am not speaking here as some kind of adept, only that I have experienced some of this and I believe it works. Not to be too hard on our parish priests, but I think they tend to shy away from what they would term the "esoteric." Partly for good reason because it can also lead to ego-inflation. They focus mostly on the spiritual benefit of attending more services. But, the services are not intended as a substitute for the necessary work in uncovering these unruly inner workings of the mind. And the problem is evident when people complain about the length of the services. Most clergy I have known are not very good at responding to that complaint, and for many decades in the Greek Church, the response was to shorten the services! But now clergy are being taught that proper, traditional liturgical discipline needs to be restored. But they are not quite sure how to convince people of its importance. My axiom is that if there is nothing going on inside, nothing is going on outside.

Rick H.

28-12-2009, 03:38 PM

Coming to understand the passions rightly is a critical need in the Christian Life--and this is nowhere truer than in our present world . . .

I appreciate this very much (thanks for breaking your rule here Fr. Dcn.--I hope you don't wait another 2400 posts to do this again if you see another opportunity like this).

And, as Fr. Dcn. wrote in the opening paragraph above:

. . . a right perception of them (the passions) is essential in the ascetical struggle of the Christian.

I have to wonder why anyone (who does acknowledge the passions) would not see the importance of understanding them rightly in terms of identifying them accurately in his/her own life? And, I guess that is what we are doing here now in terms of attempting to 'understand the nature of the passions' both in Orthodox Thought and in our own lives.

I don't want to spend much time sharing this; but, my level of awareness and understanding has increased greatly on this topic just in the past week, via this thread, and in terms of a more correct, or 'right orientation towards the Kingdom of God,' this is coming into view possibly for the first time (and it is both convicting and exciting . . .), and there is a zeal in place that has not been there for some time. So, I want to say thank you to the contributors of this thread, as well as point out that sometimes a simple reading/studying of what has already been written (in a consideration of theory and a beginning point), does not always get in the way or put a mind block in place. Sometimes to simply read Orthodox literature such as what has been shared by Seda and Fr. Dcn., and to simply study together with other Orthodox seekers--such as the contributors here--becomes the Way.

I like that word "Orientation." There has to be a 'right orientation towards the Kingdom of God.' There has to be a 'right orientation of life past the sinful confines of this world.' And, whether we come to recognize this over time, like the analogy of the government agents above, or through a much shorter period of time the point remains the same viz. 'If a man does not understand the passions rightly, he can make no progress in identifying them rightly and accurately.' As we see in Fr. Dcn's. article, there is also a knowledge of how the passions are sown and strengthened that is needed in order to avoid a state of ignorance of the ways and activities of our enemy in order to avoid a state of stagnation whereby no progress is made in the spiritual life. And, the more I think about it, the more I am persuaded that for the majority of Orthodox Church members (whether newbie or old timer), clear teachings which help to bring illumination/awareness and understanding of the nature of the passions (as well as one's own state of captivity with these) are very helpful instruments that can bring about very practical results in one's life.

Well . . . now I'm too distracted, and still very happy from last week to go further in terms of continuing on (primarily with Fr. Dcn's. article) in our discussion here of the passions. I really feel like we have what we are looking for in terms of a starting point for this thread (again primarily in Fr. Dcn's. article), but I think I will just hit the send button on this one and try again later to move forward with a contribution to this thread.

You know . . . one thing though FWIW. In this thread is contained an example of why I am not a non-Orthodox Christian anymore. As well, in this thread, there is something here that is prompting me to some sort of actual conversion. I'm not sure what, but this is a good thing. So I guess I am saying thank you again to those who are willing to be used as a tool in the hand of God.

Rick H.

28-12-2009, 04:41 PM

Okay, let's try this again.

Seda, when you wrote:

The glossaries... what can I say?... Maybe the authors were unable to completely explain what they really wanted to, in a few words.

I think I would like to just put what we are reading in the glossaries in the Philokalia on the back burner for now. At this point, for me anyway, they really are not helpful. I think we could take what Fr. Dcn. Matthew has shared in his article and harmonize what is being said there without too much trouble . . . but, I think I will just let these go for now. Actually, I remember that the last time I tried to understand the teaching of the passions in Orthodox Thought it was with these entries that I threw up my hands last time around.

And, Mary, when you wrote:

Why do things have to be either good or bad? What if they're neutral?

This makes a lot of sense in light of Mike's recent writing in the Qigong thread about things that we do that can be good, bad, or neutral. Also, I laughed when you apologized for adding to my confusion because it was clear to me that at times, on an increasing basis, you can read me like a book.

And, Mike, when you wrote:

My personal suggestion would be to use the definition which Fr Dcn Matthew, Fr Maximos and Archimandrite Meletios all expressed in various ways:

This definition focuses on the soul being passive in the face of dominating impulses. The other definition seems to focus on the impulses themselves, and the fact that they are corruptions of something created good by God. I suspect (though I can't be sure due to my lack of reading) that if there are indeed two groups of Fathers who seem to use the word "passions" differently, that the difference is probably in focus and emphasis rather than in understanding of the issues involved (in other words, I doubt they're actually contradicting each other).

Again, as I mentioned to Seda, I'm just going to let the issue of the Fathers in the Philokalia go. On the one hand, I agree with you that I doubt it if they are actually contradicting each other, but on the other hand, I just don't know).

But as far as a definition goes, I wonder if I would be oversimplifying the matter to consider the definition you supplied above along with more from Fr. Dcn's. article in terms of:

Passion: Anything that prevents a man from conformity to Christ and growth into his Kingdom.

Or, possibly to use the words supplied in your quote something like:

Passion: Anything that entrenches itself in a man, or dominates and entraps him, and prevents him from conformity to Christ and growth into His Kingdom.

And, as far as our past discussion about "rooting out" a passion as seemingly oppossed to "transforming" it, what if there are some that we do "root out" but there are others that we cannot root out so they need to fought against and in this sense transformed so they do not dominate us.

Do you see what I mean here? For example when it comes to some passions like gluttony, we know that the impulse of the body to eat food is a good impulse and a natural impulse. But when this impulse becomes distorted and becomes sinful and dominates us in terms of gluttony we have a situation whereby we cannot "root out" the impulse to eat in order to fight this passion.

But, with other passions, like pride, we know that this is not a natural impulse placed in us by God for good, bu this is dominating passionate impulse . . . so in this case there would be an approach taken in the hope of "rooting this out."

And, I'm not very happy with these two examples that I have given here, but hopefully this will get us going on the right track in terms of at least making 'a proper distinction between natural impulses and dominating passionate impulses.'

Possibly, it is incorrect to say that all of the passions should be "rooted out" just as much as it is incorrect to say that all of the passions are to be "transformed?"

As we consider the following list (taken from the 'Praktikos' for our purposes here):

first is that of gluttony;

and with it, sexual immorality;

third, love of money;

fourth, sadness;

fifth, anger;

sixth acedia;

seventh, vainglory;

eighth, pride.

Possibly, we may conclude that some passions are intrinsically evil, a 'disease' of the soul; however, other passions are impulses originally placed in man by God, and so fundamentally good . . ."

Mary

29-12-2009, 12:48 AM

Passion: Anything that entrenches itself in a man, or dominates and entraps him, and prevents him from conformity to Christ and growth into His Kingdom.

I like this one. =)

And, I'm not very happy with these two examples that I have given here, but hopefully this will get us going on the right track in terms of at least making 'a proper distinction between natural impulses and dominating passionate impulses.'

Possibly, it is incorrect to say that all of the passions should be "rooted out" just as much as it is incorrect to say that all of the passions are to be "transformed?"

Actually, I think they're very good examples. There are some who have suffered from gluttonly, who in their effort to root that out, go to the opposite extreme and end up with anorexia. It's hard to find balance when it comes to food. But, there is a state of balance, where you get hungry and you eat to satisfy your hunger, and it's neither sinful to feel the hunger, nor to satisfy it.

However, there's no balance in pride. There's no neutral state where you have just enough pride to keep it from becoming sinful, or a negative state where you don't have enough pride to be holy.

There is self love and self loathing. I don't know how they relate to pride, but that might come up later in the discussion. I just wanted to say, you're examples are good ones.

Anna Stickles

29-12-2009, 03:02 AM

Rick,

I still think things are still not quite coming together. If we look at your list and call such things as "sadness" and "anger" passions we have a problem. I think these lists are put out to be a help, but fall short of the reality we are reaching at and if we bog down here, we won't move on.

Fr Dcn Matthew already mentioned that there is a right use of anger and sadness in his post, but maybe some additional context will be helpful.

Let's talk about anger. Anger is connected with the incensive aspect of the soul. When one is angry, this is basically the soul acting in such a way as to push away or defend itself against whatever object it perceives as bothering or threatening it. The Fathers often talk about the right use of anger as being angry at the tempting thoughts that assail us. But wrong anger is to simply "swat" at the various annoying or painful people and circumstance that come our way. We can understand that there is controlling anger and controlled anger.

With sadness, there is a kind of grief that contains within it self-pity, depression and other self-destrictive tendencies where the powers of the soul get turned against the soul itself, but the Fathers tell us that there is also contrition, that, growing out of compassion and rooted in humility, is not self-distructive but healing (Worldly sorrow and godly sorrow)

Or what about gluttony, love of money, sexual immorality or vanity? These are all corruptions of the appetitive, ie the desiring part of the soul, that aspect of the soul by which it is able to pull things into itself, and I think that we recognize in each of these that there is a way to relate to money, food, physical affection, and self-image which is good and healthy and a way in which our desire for these becomes an insatiable demand that controls us.

Even with pride, which I think has to do with self-will and the distorted desire for control, we can see that there is a rightful authority and degree of control given to man which, when he is healed by grace, he uses without passion in a good way to help the ordering of creation. We see this type of authority in the spiritual elders of the Church. God gave it to Adam and Eve in the garden and never took that away. But in our sinful fallen state the desire for control gets distorted. We try to control that which is around us in order to satisfy our desires or protect ourselves from whatever we fear. Pride augments and undergirds misdirected desire and anger.

So in one sense the Fathers when making lists of "passions" are really just listing out different ways that we experience this domination of our created powers. But the root of those passions, the dominating impulse which is added to human nature distorting our natural energies is also called passion.

So it is good to keep the context in mind when reading the Fathers or using the word passion ourselves. Are we talking about the root impulse/distortion/irrationality that was added to our nature at the Fall, or are we talking about the various end experiences of that impulse as it is mixed in with and reacts with the various powers of our soul?

Possibly, it is incorrect to say that all of the passions should be "rooted out" just as much as it is incorrect to say that all of the passions are to be "transformed?"
This isn't quite the right way to look at things. What needs to be "rooted out" is this dominating impulse. What needs to be transformed is the way in which the powers of our soul operate in relation to God, ourselves and the rest of creation. This transformation happens naturally as the distortion is rooted out and grace takes it place. In reference to this you might want to go back and look at the quotes by Tertullian and St Gregory in post #54 in the "Theosis and It's relation to the oldest lie.." thread.

See also the quote from earlier.

The person becomes a captive of obsessive logismoi, leading to ongoing destructive acts to oneself and others, such as in the case of a compulsive gambler. The holy elders have warned us that when we become dominated by such passions it is like giving the key of our heart to Satan so that he can get in and out any time he wishes. We see a lot of our brothers and sisters struggling desperately to overcome their obsessive passions and addictions but without much success. They are fully aware that what they do is self-destructive. They are capable of reasoning with clarity of mind, but their heart is captive. They cannot eject from themselves that negative energy that possesses and controls them.

Rick H.

29-12-2009, 04:34 AM

Hi Anna,

Thank you very much for taking the time to write this nice long post. If I was smart, I'd wait until tomorrow to ask for your help with this (I just woke up on the couch and it's half-time with the Vikings losing to the Bears!) So, I'm a little groggy, but I'm afraid I'm missing the trolley here to be honest.

I thought you would be happy with the definition that I offered above:

Passion: Anything that entrenches itself in a man, or dominates and entraps him, and prevents him from conformity to Christ and growth into His Kingdom.

Because this moves us well beyond both lists and categories.

Just as you wrote:

I think these lists are put out to be a help, but fall short of the reality we are reaching at and if we bog down here, we won't move on.

I agree with you, and actually posted Evagrius' 'Eight Tempting Thoughts (logismoi), from his section covering the Nature of Logismoi in his "Praktikos for us to consider the differences between a natural impulse and a dominating passionate impulse, as Fr. Dcn. has written.

But, again, I should apologize here because between my football snacks and football nap I could easily be missing what you are saying.

In the meantime though, I wonder how you view the above definition in light of the first paragraph from Fr. Dcn's article Anna? As he wrote:

. . . discovering in himself those things which prevent him from conformity to Christ and growth into this Kingdom. These are what the Fathers call ‘the passions’, and a right perception of them is essential in the ascetical struggle of the Christian.

This seems to be saying that the Fathers call 'the passions' things which prevent a man from conformity to Christ and growth into His Kingdom. So in this case this could easily include sadness as dejection or the wrong kind of anger, or gluttony or love of money or other just as St. John Cassian has written of these. If I remember correctly St. Cassian distinguishes between the passion of sorrow and a Godly sorrow as well as a bad kind of anger and a good kind of anger. So, I'm not sure why these things present a problem as we might distinguish between them (while keeping in mind which would fall under the 'category' of passions at the same time as the Father's use the term 'the passions.')

So, I'll have to wait for you to respond to bring me up to speed on what is problematic, with what I have shared above in this post (or maybe you will say that we are on the same page after all).

Thanks for putting up with me here Anna! I know you are one sharp lady, so if I am missing something in what I have just written about, please point it out.

I have to get back to the living room now and put another log on the fire and get back to sleep, the second half is under way! :O) I hoped to see Brett Farve put on a show tonight, but I don't care who wins this one; however, Go Bengals!

Owen Jones

29-12-2009, 01:56 PM

What has not been mentioned, so far as I can see, is that it is impossible to fight against the passions. If you try to take them head on they will always win. This is because when the will is engaged to fight the passions, one descends even deeper into self-will. Our task is simply to empirically identify what they are, not externally but internally, not in the abstract but concretely. With a humble heart then we ask God to do the work necessary to a) remove them and their hold over us and b) to protect us from demonic future temptation which actually occurs in the very early stages, long before anger, for example, actually wells up and takes over.

Seda S.

29-12-2009, 02:27 PM

Okay, let's try this again.

Seda, when you wrote:

........

Possibly, we may conclude that some passions are intrinsically evil, a 'disease' of the soul; however, other passions are impulses originally placed in man by God, and so fundamentally good . . ."

Dear Rick

Already so many different ideas have been expressed in this thread, some really confusing, that I don't know from where to start and where to go, whom to answer, whom not, what and how to say... Well, as a result, I feel I'm tired of this topic which is in reality very interesting, one of my favourites, to be frank. Sorry for that. I'm just unable to orient now.

Rick H.

29-12-2009, 02:36 PM

What has not been mentioned, so far as I can see, is that it is impossible to fight against the passions. If you try to take them head on they will always win. This is because when the will is engaged to fight the passions, one descends even deeper into self-will.

This is an excellent point Owen (thank you), and this speaks directly to something that I have struggled with for about eighteen years now in terms of "What is our part in the spiritual life?" In both Orthodoxy and Non-Orthodox Christian faith traditions/denominations I see varied views of both an approach to the Christian life in terms of yielding to the Spirit and passively being dominated/filled by Him, and being diligent/active and struggling and doing all we can in our pursuit of the Life in Christ. I'm not sure that there is a more relevant discussion to this question, "What is our part of the spiritual life?" than what we are involved with here. I have come to the conclusion that any answers will be found in the doctrine of cooperation; but, again, there does not seem to be a unified view in terms of what our part is here.

Our task is simply to empirically identify what they are, not externally but internally, not in the abstract but concretely. With a humble heart then we ask God to do the work necessary to a) remove them and their hold over us and b) to protect us from demonic future temptation which actually occurs in the very early stages, long before anger, for example, actually wells up and takes over.

This also takes us right to the heart of the matter, I think, as well as in the direction Mike has suggested above. As well I think we are back to the first paragraph of Fr. Dcn's. article above which begins to addresses the need for perspective and awareness of the external (including our foe) in order that we might gain awareness and understanding of the internal combat, and so that we might have a "right orientation" that 'sets the heart in the ONLY position whereby it may accurately struggle in a Christ-like way in this world. I agree fully that we need 'to discover in ourselves those things which prevent us from conformity to Christ and growth in His Kingdom,' and these things being what the Fathers called the passions; but, I also feel strongly that without some type of perspective and understanding of the external one may find his end not unlike what Mike described whereby there is a full-blown autism to be found under the guise of dispassion.

No matter how you hold it up to the light and turn it . . . ignorance of the external, or the enemy, or what the Fathers are teaching about the passions is not a virtue for this spiritual warfare.

Rick H.

29-12-2009, 02:45 PM

. . . I'm just unable to orient now.

Hi Seda,

I think I know what you mean, sometimes when a thread becomes very active it is hard for me to determine my position in relation to what is being presented by others (especially if there seems to be a significant degree of confusion or error). Sometimes it can be a bit overwhelming or like a part-time job to particpate in an active thread in terms of keeping up with what's said. When this happens, I like to pull away (and trade the keyboard for the teapot) and clear my mind. This usually helps me to get my bearings again.

Hopefully, you will rejoin this conversation in the near future because you have been such a help to me here and I suspect not a few others as well!

Maybe if you do make a nice hot cup of something Seda, you could print off Fr. Dcn's. article and kick back with that in a nice quiet spot. I really think that if there is a true north to be found in our conversation so far it will be found in this essay.

Thanks again very much for your most outstanding contributions and references!

Your Brother in Christ,
Rick

PS I think we have moved on from any suggestion that there can be a passion (as defined above) that is fundamentally good.

Owen Jones

29-12-2009, 03:20 PM

Again, understanding the doctrine is not only insufficient, but it can be a distraction. We will spend so much time trying to understand that we never actually get around to doing anything...In Orthodoxy, we don't wait until we understand, we begin now by practicing obedience and what understanding we are given will be given, over time.

Rick H.

29-12-2009, 03:28 PM

Owen Jones

29-12-2009, 03:32 PM

"they are really not helpful..."

I realize that it is helpful to take some of the Greek technical language and try to convert it to common sense English terms. But I detect a kind of dismissiveness here, a kind of infantile impatience with it. One of the tasks of every Orthodox Christian is to have a nominal grasp of the technical language that was once illuminative because of the cultural environment, but which has become opaque to many of us because of the huge cultural differences between now and then. We should not just be dismissive and say, well, that's not helpful and I'm going to move on to something else. This is a perfect example of the passions ruling our intellect. Please, for your own sake, try taking one thing at a time and working on it until you have clarity, before you move on to the next mega question...

Seda S.

29-12-2009, 03:52 PM

PS I think we have moved on from any suggestion that there can be a passion (as defined above) that is fundamentally good.

Oh, Rick. What do you mean by 'fundamentally good'. I can understand it in different ways. I have to state again the same thing. The word 'passion' CAN be and WAS used by the Fathers also in the sense of those 'impulses' (though this word doesn't seem to be very appropriate) that are considered natural for us, because they became natural after the fall of the human being. They are called 'blameless', 'innocent', 'natural' passions. Yes, PASSIONS!!! St John of Damascus:

The natural and innocent passions are those which are not in our power, but which have entered into the life of man owing to the condemnation by reason of the transgression; such as hunger, thirst, weariness, labour, the tears, the corruption, the shrinking from death, the fear, the agony with the bloody sweat, the succour at the hands of angels because of the weakness of the natu, and other such like passions which belong by nature to every man. (An Exact Exposition, Book 3, Chapter XX).

Are we going to edit the language of St John and many others who used this word in this way.

Pls understand me correctly. This doesn't make 'passion' generally something good, because that word itself, 'passion'/'pathos', has the meanings of both suffering and disease. And of course, God didn't create suffering, didn't create disease. These are consequences of the fall. So, in this sense, passions are evil and, of course, not good, as you say, because God didn't create evil. Evil, as we believe, is not nature, is not created; it is the consequence of the act of willing by the rational beings, men or angels. Somewhere I read that passion is a disease 'of will'. Yes, all of this is true. But let us also not 'edit' the language of those Fathers who used this word also for the 'natural impulses, properties' or call it as you wish.

I would say also that if we consider, for example, suffering and shedding tears from it, as passions, and I think they are (it would be not correct to think that man was initially created to suffer and cry, and we hope that 'all tears will go away from all faces' in the life to come for the lovers of God), then the right usage of this our 'weakness', of 'disease', help us to draw near to God, overcoming those other passions which we call 'evil', which fail us in our journey to salvation and the Saviour.

That is why, let us not fall into some kind of 'formalism', saying, the word 'passion' is only negative and a full stop.

I don't know, maybe this my post was redundant?

Rick H.

29-12-2009, 04:01 PM

Owen, after reading your last post, I do not think that you know what I was referring to with the quote you stripped out above because there is no technical langauge used in the glossary definitions of the two views.

I stand by what I said . . . and if the trajectory of this thread continues as it has, if there is a discovery process here in this thread that does bring clarity to the issue by means of the track we are on now, then to say these definitions are "not helpful" will, in the end, be a gracious thing to say!

Why don't you pull your copy down off the shelf and look at it right now (Passions).

What's it say?

I didn't want to push the point in light of our conversation here because that would not have been helpful in and of itself, but the point is there is no Greek technical language here or any English technical language here. I bailed out on the questions of two views or not for the sake of this conversation . . . but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the editors themselves make reference to these as two views in terms of there writing on the first view and then as they say at the end of this definition "On this second view . . ." One would have to be in a kind of La-La-Land to think they are saying anything other than there are two views here.

I think Seda was gracious as she wrote:

The glossaries... what can I say?... Maybe the authors were unable to completely explain what they really wanted to, in a few words.

You were correct to sense some frustration as I decided to pull off of that aspect of our conversation for a few different reasons and because the obvious implication is if there is not "a second view," if they can't get it right in the glossary how are they going to get it right in the translation of the main text?

But, I guess you can say now that I'm being dismissive of your last post.

Seda S.

29-12-2009, 04:25 PM

Dear Rick

Was my last post very passionate? :)) Sorry for that. I'm that hot-blooded, unfortunately. It's because of our mountains :).

With love in Christ,
Seda

Rick H.

29-12-2009, 05:03 PM

Dear Rick

Was my last post very passionate? :)) Sorry for that. I'm that hot-blooded, unfortunately. It's because of our mountains :).

You are more than fine Seda. I loved the clarity in your last post even if there was a degree of redundancy . . . my Dad once said I was the "Redundancy Vice President of Redundancy" so you can take that for what it's worth. I appreciate it that you pay careful attention to what is written and respond in a way that can be understood. Sometimes to repeat what one is saying can be very helpful in terms of achieving a true interpersonal communication.

But, I wonder if you can see it from my perspective here?

I have no agenda here, or in other words I am a learner in this conversation as I said in the first sentence of the first post of this thread:

I am hoping that this thread can provide a clear and easy to understand explanation of the Orthodox view of the passions.

And, I am reading things which seem to be contradictory here. I keep quoting from Fr. Dcn's. article and no one is interacting with what he has written.

I see very clearly what you are saying in your posts, especially your last post ;) . . . and this seems to me to not be in alignment with what Fr. Dcn. has written . . . so here, from my limited perspective, there seems to be two views.

What say you Seda? When you read in Fr. Dcn's. essay that:

1.) The Fathers call things which prevent a man from conformity to Christ and growth into this Kingdom "the passions"

And, when you read there that:

2.) "Passions" are "perversions of natural impulses" and "distortions of natural desires" that "dominate and enslave

would you not agree that from my limited perspective it would seem that there are two different presentations of the passions being made in your posts and Fr. Dcn's. article? Here in this comparison, forget about the word meanings that we have talked about . . . because if we bear down on what is being said by you and by him, to the point of everyone understanding each other's language, then I think we still have two different teachings.

Maybe this would be a good time for Fr. Dcn. Matthew to step in and clear this up for us? <<<subtle hint

If it is true that the word "passions" is used differently by different authors in Orthodoxy, as it seems to be, then I would wonder next how widespread this is.

And, if it is true that there is a widespread use of the word "passion" by different Orthodox authors in a way where the same word can mean different things . . . then, how can we not conclude that this word (like the word existentialism) has lost all definition and is a meaningless word?

In the past, for similar reasons, Owen has suggested that maybe we should just junk the term "Tradition" . . . maybe we should just junk the term "Passions."

And, I don't have any mountains close by to blame anything on :0) . . . but, I hope you can see that even if there appears to be some frustration on my part, at times, I have no agenda here in terms of promoting one view or another, I am just hear as a learner.

Mary

29-12-2009, 05:52 PM

but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the editors themselves make reference to these as two views in terms of there writing on the first view and then as they say at the end of this definition "On this second view . . ." One would have to be in a kind of La-La-Land to think they are saying anything other than there are two views here.

Rick, a word about editors and anonymous footnotes - they are not to be trusted as much as the text itself. In fact, don't even bother reading them, they're a distraction. I read a book, which had the story of St Martin of Tours - the only book with all of his story. It was put together by protestants who have studied the Fathers. I'm guessing they didn't mess with the story, because they recounted all the innumerable miracles associated with St Martin. However there was a footnote trying to explain away the large number of miracles as being, perhaps an exaggeration, because of the historian's love for St Martin. Hogwash. Anyway, that's just to say, don't put as much weight to the words you find in the glossary, in the footnotes, etc. We do not know who those people are. Even if they are orthodox, we do not know how they live their lives, and I hope we all understand, that discussions without practice, limits our understanding, or maybe even distorts it. We learn to live the Orthodox Way, primarily by doing. Which is why, a little child can be a saint. Anyone can go to church, make the sign of the cross, do confessions, partake of the Eucharist, etc.

That being said, for those of us who are encumbered with brains that won't lie still, we do need to learn to engage our minds in a profitable manner, and so, I find this discussion very useful. The reason I haven't interacted yet, with Fr Matthew's post, is because I had to put it in the slow cooker, and it's not done yet. But I'll take your advice and print it out, and read it in a more comfortable spot than this chair. With a cup of tea, of course! =)

And, I am reading things which seem to be contradictory here. I keep quoting from Fr. Dcn's. article and no one is interacting with what he has written.

I see very clearly what you are saying in your posts, especially your last post ;) . . . and this seems to me to not be in alignment with what Fr. Dcn. has written . . . so here, from my limited perspective, there seems to be two views.

What say you Seda? When you read in Fr. Dcn's. essay that:

1.) The Fathe's call things which prevent a man from conformity to Christ and growth into this Kingdom "the passions"

And, when you read there that:

2.) "Passions" are "perversions of natural impulses" and "distortions of natural desires" that "dominate and enslave

would you not agree that from my limited perspective it would seem that there are two different presentations of the passions being made in your posts and Fr. Dcn's. article?

Actually, they're saying the same thing. Our natural impulses and desires do not prevent us from conforming to Christ and growth into His Kingdom, till they begin to dominate and enslave us.

I'll stop there, just to make sure that I've got it right.

And, if it is true that there is a widespread use of the word "passion" by different Orthodox authors in a way where the same word can mean different things . . . then, how can we not conclude that this word (like the word existentialism) has lost all definition and is a meaningless word?

In the past, for similar reasons, Owen has suggested that maybe we should just junk the term "Tradition" . . . maybe we should just junk the term "Passions."

Passion is a useful word. Can't think of a better one. The normal English usage of the word: from dictionary.com

1. any powerful or compelling emotion or feeling, as love or hate.
2. strong amorous feeling or desire; love; ardor.
3. strong sexual desire; lust.
4. an instance or experience of strong love or sexual desire.
5. a person toward whom one feels strong love or sexual desire.
6. a strong or extravagant fondness, enthusiasm, or desire for anything: a passion for music.
7. the object of such a fondness or desire: Accuracy became a passion with him.
8. an outburst of strong emotion or feeling: He suddenly broke into a passion of bitter words.
9. violent anger.
10. the state of being acted upon or affected by something external, esp. something alien to one's nature or one's customary behavior (contrasted with action (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=action&db=luna) ).
11. (often initial capital letterhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) Theology.
a. the sufferings of Christ on the cross or His sufferings subsequent to the Last Supper.
b. the narrative of Christ's sufferings as recorded in the Gospels.
12. Archaic. the sufferings of a martyr.I'm not good at summarizing. But even in English, it carries the sense of an extreme, an obsession that excludes everything else, a lack of self control, a sense of being taken over by the thing that one is passionate about. This is the result of distorting natural emotions and impulses. Passion is not a good thing. People have tried to use it in a good way, like if they say one is passionate about some good cause. But even that is not a good thing, because I've seen people who are passionate about something good, lose sight of their own children and replace every other good thing in their lives, with their cause. Not good.

From the dictionary definition, the only part of 'passion' that I have a problem with is the 'passion of Christ'. This doesn't seem to fit in, with what the Father's talk about, or with the plain english defintion of being overly obsessed with something. Never did understand it's usage in relation to Christ. I dont' know if that fits in with the theme of this thread though.

Rick, before things get put in order, the chaos temporarily increases. Like when you empty a closet to organize things... so, don't put too much weight on any one thing right now. We're just emptying the closet. When it's all empty, and we start putting things back, then we'll start to see how things fit together. (I hope!!) =)

in Christ,
Mary.

Owen Jones

29-12-2009, 06:02 PM

Well, then, grapple with it Rick until you find some clarity. Then move on to the next question. Orthodoxy does not teach handbook theology, but it seems at times that that is what you are after.

Rick H.

29-12-2009, 07:30 PM

Fair enough Owen, especially in light of your comments in the "Realm of Truth" thread where you wrote very well against claims of objectivity (viz. claims that Orthodoxy--our faith, our God, our Eucharist is objectively true). You shared that at times those who claim this or work within these bounds have within themselves a condition of dissatisfaction and at times live in a state of spiritual disorder that one hopes he can quell by means other than living as a willing and open partner in the truth. But, I guess we are getting into another thread with this.

As for this thread today, in the here and now . . . why can't you take some of your firepower and meet us where we are?

Why won't you interact with Fr. Dcn. Matthew's writing on the nature of the passions?

You seem to be a veteran of Orthodoxy as much as any convert that I am aware of . . . why won't you roll up your sleeves and help Mary and I, and others empty out this closet? Even if you think it is a waste of time to empty out the closet (let alone trying to put them back in in an organized way) . . . I am not a fan of handbooks actually, but why not give us a hand here because this is where some of us are at today. If "truth is a quest" why not at least pull up a chair and sit down, and stay, and talk to those of us who rightly or wrongly have as part of our journey, at this point in our lives, the task of cleaning out a closet? Maybe there are different paths that one can take in terms of an Exodus from a resistance to truth in order to move into the realm of truth.

Mary

29-12-2009, 07:32 PM

An extremely important thing, that I keep forgetting to mention, that has worked amazing wonders for me, and my understanding of various issues - listen to the podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio - there's one series by Fr Meletios and one by Fr Matthew. The reason they're so important is because you get to know their voices and their cool accents. Then, when you read something that they wrote, you read it using their voice and accent, and it really hits the spot and you start to understand things that you never thought possible!

Seriously. This isn't a joke.

in Christ,
Mary. =)

Rick H.

29-12-2009, 07:54 PM

After reading your post above Mary, I think passion is a good word to use and we should not abandon it. That's helpful and a very good analogy of chaos temporarily increasing when you start to clean out a closet--thank you.

And, I hope we get some help here Mary; but, as you wrote:

Actually, they're saying the same thing. Our natural impulses and desires do not prevent us from conforming to Christ and growth into His Kingdom, till they begin to dominate and enslave us.

I think Seda is saying that our natural impulses and desires *are* considered 'passions' by some of the Fathers; but, as you say our natural impulses do not prevent us from conforming . . . so in our working definition, and in Fr. Dcns. first paragraph these *are not* considered 'passions,' by the Fathers, for the very reason that they do not prevent us from conforming . . . so through my blurry eyes today, it seems to me that they aren't saying the same thing.

But, I think I have reached that point where I need to get some water to the boiling point and have that cup of tea myself! :0) Maybe we can get that theological firm of Stickles and Stickles in here to help us get this straightened out?

Thanks for the mention about the Ancient Faith Radio programs. Are these programs that you are referring to by these two Fathers about the passions? If so, would it be possible to get links posted here when you might have time?

Thank you.

Mary

29-12-2009, 08:21 PM

Thanks for the mention about the Ancient Faith Radio programs. Are these programs that you are referring to by these two Fathers about the passions? If so, would it be possible to get links posted here when you might have time?

Thank you.

Oh, no, not at all! Well, some might be. I never remember the content for long. But I do remember voices and accents. =)

M.C. Steenberg

29-12-2009, 08:23 PM

Dear friends,

Just briefly: I would reiterate that to the Fathers writing in Greek, 'passion' clearly comes from the Greek word pathos, which means 'to suffer', but specifically in the sense of passively suffering. So 'passion' is intimately connected to the idea of something which has come to dominate -- to render the person the passive recipient, rather than the active lord, of his or her created estate.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Anna Stickles

30-12-2009, 01:30 AM

What has not been mentioned, so far as I can see, is that it is impossible to fight against the passions. If you try to take them head on they will always win. This is because when the will is engaged to fight the passions, one descends even deeper into self-will.

When I read this, this morning, I could hear questions coming about passive and active. ;)

"What is our part of the spiritual life?"To use a Rickism, Owen is "spot on" with his answer "we begin now by practicing obedience ...."

I would like to try to make the link here showing how obedience is the answer to the problem of self-will that Owen points out in the first quote. The goal of the Christian life is freedom in Christ. That freedom comes only in the redemption of the will, but God does not magically wave a wand over us because this would be a violation of our freedom. Our will must be engaged in the process of our redemption.

Engaged how? This is crucial. Outside the church people are engaged in trying to free themselves from passions because these passions cause all kinds of nasty consequences. Gluttony causes one to be overweight, mental distraction and forgetfulness cause problems on the job, anger causes one problems in relationships, etc. So we find outside the church 10,001 self-help books focusing on teaching people how to overcome these passions in a way that still leaves them engaged, not with God, but with themselves and their own self-willed life. This leads either to the self-sufficient worldly successful person, or the societal wreck living a life of depression and despair, lost in vain entertainments to cover their pain. These are the two extremes that self-will leads us too.

In the Church we don't engage directly in trying to free ourselves from the passions. We engage in struggling to obey Christ who manifests Himself in His Church. This pits us against the passions, but in a different, God centered rather then self-centered, way. We must actively be engaged, n this battle but we don't depend on our own strength to be sufficient. We must learn to wait on God's help and leave behind our own plans and will as to when and how that help will appear. God may leave us hanging precisely so as to wean the self-will out of our ascetical striving and strengthen our faith and will toward Him.

In order to obey Christ we must set our will against the passions, since the passions are precisely the things that do not allow us to obey. But in this obedience our will is directed not toward our own self pleasing ends, but rather toward pleasing God. So if we struggle with gluttony, we put away all thoughts about losing weight, being more healthy,etc. ... all those self-centered motives..., and we simply, and with faith and love toward God, engage in the ascetical discipline given to us, knowing that God desires us to be free and to be with Him. It's obedience as a lifestyle, not obedience in order to accomplish something, that is going to set us free. It is obedience that provides the forum for faith and humility to grow. And faith and humility are the prerequisites for grace.

So just to summarize,we engage our will in obeying out of a desire to please God, not with trying to beat the passions head on. A good spiritual guide will adjust the regimen to keep us from straying to the right or the left. Confession of thoughts really helps because it drains the energy out of those passionate thoughts. Also a good spiritual guide will help us replace those passionate thoughts with thoughts that refocus us on our desire to enter the Kingdom of God.

Our only job is to keep putting one foot in front of the other in our efforts to obey, God through the internal and external trials and blockages He allows us to encounter, and through the increase and withdraw of grace does the work of breaking down our self-will and once this goes, all the rest of the passions start to break and run. Before this goes, it acts like a fortress protecting all the other passions making them impossible to really do much about.

Rick H.

30-12-2009, 02:52 PM

When I read this, this morning, I could hear questions coming about passive and active. ;)

I'm going to have to find another forum, some people are starting to know me too well here! :0)

I think everyone here would agree with you and Owen Anna. If there is no application, if there is no practicing in obedience and this in a God centered way then we have things like 'a deeper decent into self-will' and are left with self-help books which yield either a successful self-sufficient person or the wreck you described.

The only element that I could add to what you have shared about obedience is that of trust (or as we see in the Hebrew 'betach'), somewhat as we used to sing the old hymn "Trust and Obey." To me when there is this trust in place, this confident conviction in 'the process' (viz. what we are doing based on our faith in God, based on what we have learned and believe), and when there is this deep seated feeling of security is in place, then this is what makes a difference between some kind of effort based in a blind faith not unlike what is really going on the self-help books which address the passions.

And, when I read your statement:

In the Church we don't engage directly in trying to free ourselves from the passions.

This brought back to mind where I left off with Mike in another thread where we were discussing a direct approach to the chakras as opposed to an indirect approach. And, as well, to be honest I kind of questioned if this is entirely true . . . I wondered really, just how dogmatic we can be about this assertion.

It seems as though I have read often of the need to engage our will in a very practical way and in this sense to take a very direct approach to some of the passions. In this we are instructed to "make every effort" and to "apply with all diligence" what we are instructed to do in order to obtain our goal. This is very active and very direct engagement I am referring to here.

The example that comes to mind first is the one of getting control of our stomachs, simply put not eating too much (or too little). It seems as though I have read from more than one Orthodox source that this, gluttony, is to be the #1 passion on our hit lists as we do get going . . . as we do begin with application of what we have learned or been instructed to do by our spiritual directors.

I appreciate very much what you wrote about when you shared what a good spiritual guide will do for his/her child toward the end of your last post, and this I think would be 'as is appropriate' for each specific student.
But, what I'm driving at here is some passions like gluttony, and some remedies call for a direct engagement on our part in Orthodox literature.

St. Cassian for example, in "On Control of the Stomach" found in "On the Eight Vices" labors over and over in the majority of his section here to make the point clear:

1.) "They (the Holy Fathers) have not given us only a single rule for fasting or a single standard and measure for eating, because not everyone has the same strength; age, illness, or delicacy of body [and this] create[s] differences. But, they have given us all a single goal . . .

2.) "As I have said, the Fathers have handed down a single basic rule of self-control . . .`

3.) "A clear rule for self-control handed down by the Fathers is this . . .

And, what is this rule that is pointed to and stressed, and repeated over and over in this section by St. Cassian? What is this that we are supposed to do??

It is: Don't eat too much.

We are not directed to raise our hands to the sky and wail for divine intervention. And, this does not exclude other spiritual practices for sure, like what we see in the final paragraph of St. Cassian's section here, or like what a good spiritual director would make as part of a regime . . . the point that is stressed is for us to not keep shoveling it in to our mouths, to not fill up (and this includes water).

This clear and basic single rule of self-control which has been handed down is a direction for us to simply not eat too much, as we read from St. Cassian of this rule:

1.) ". . .avoid over-eating and the filling of our bellies."

2.) ". . . stop eating while still hungry and do not continue until you are satisfied."

So, with the above reference to 'our part' as an example, as I read your assertion:

In the Church we don't engage directly in trying to free ourselves from the passions.

I do have to wonder how accurate this is?

And, I think of a time when I was 20 years old and was ready to quit smoking cigarettes. I was talking with an old guy I liked to go fishing with. His name was Okie. I told him I was ready to quit smoking, but it seemed like it would be a hard thing . . . to which he replied, in his characteristically gruff and humorous way, "There's nothing to it Rick, if you want to quit smoking cigarettes then just don't put them in your mouth and light them!" I miss that guy. But, anyway . . . there is both an external struggle and an internal struggle with such bodily passions, I understand this. And, as it relates to Orthodoxy there is a cooperation that takes place between man and God, so this is all I'm saying really how can we say that we don't engage directly with the passions. With at least the appetitive aspect of the bodily passions (see my new fancy schmancy language), it seems clear reading St. Cassian that there is a struggle, which is ours, that resembles more of a full frontal assault let alone a lesser degree of engagement.

PS I have an friend who is a well known yoga teacher in Cincinnati. He told me that when he lived in India he was taught by his guru that when we eat, when we are finished we should have 1/3 food, 1/3 water, and 1/3 air in the stomach. But, then he moved to America and saw that we must have been taught that we are to have 2/3 food, 2/3 water, and 1/3 air.

Seda S.

30-12-2009, 03:31 PM

With at least the appetitive aspect of the bodily passions (see my new fancy schmancy language), it seems clear reading St. Cassian that there is a struggle, which is ours, that resembles more of a full frontal assault let alone a lesser degree of engagement.

Of course, there is a struggle. I think, all Fathers who wrote treatises on asceticism speak about that struggle against passions and thoughts or demons that give birth to or assist the growth of the passions in us. And generally, all Christians, whether in monasteries or in the world, are in some way warriors under the leadership of our King Jesus Christ.

Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit... Ephes 6:13-18

Especially pay attention to the words "the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God". Our Lord Himself taught us, in His example, how to fight when we are tempted by the passions and demons- with the sword of the word of God. Because to all 'words' by which Satan tempted Him in the desert, He would answer by the words of Holy Scripture. Later in this same manner Evagrius would write his "Antirrhetikos" for the struggle against 8 passions.

Anna Stickles

30-12-2009, 03:36 PM

Rick,

I liked what you said about trust and security. I think "blind faith" can be equated with "totally rational, mind based faith". Trust is faith in the heart.

Trust in God is foundational, and I think in any relationship of spiritual direction trust is foundational too. Trust that God has provided it and is working in it, trust in the person's character which enabels us to open up, trust in their experience which enables a willingness to be led. This is what keeps the relationship from being mechanical obedience and a destruction of the disciples personality. It's a mutual effort toward a common goal, based on faith in God. ( I suppose I should have moved this to the spiritual father thread, but your comments brought to mind some previous discussions we've had on this topic and some of your questions there.)

Anyway back to the main point. You took one thing that I said, "In the Church we don't engage directly in trying to free ourselves from the passions." and then focused on this to the exclusion of its context. I apologize if they way I put things was not so clear.

Here is the rest of what I said, "We engage in struggling to obey Christ .... This pits us against the passions, but in a different, God centered rather then self-centered, way."

If we read the admonitions of the Fathers "don't eat too much" and try to obey them with our will engaged the wrong way, we will end up in a continual cycle of failure and never make any spiritual progress. Self-control isn't the goal, deification is the goal. This is important.

The point is not, "Are we are we active or passive?" We are. Both. The question is, how do we need to direct our will? We need to engage our will in trying to obey, and we need to "raise our hands to the sky and wail for divine intervention". We are very much directed to do both of these in the Patristic literature. "Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me, a sinner" This isn't optional, this is foundational.

Why? Because otherwise we engage in ascetic struggle in a self-centered way. If we are not accompanying our struggle with prayer then we are depending on our own strength to fix the problem rather then God's grace. Yes we must struggle,--- because the struggle develops within us the prerequisites for grace, not because it is effective in and of itself to deify us.

See the difference when we remember that deification is the goal rather then self-control? I know people who quit smoking. Ok, they were able to achieve some self-control. I know people who quit overeating, lost a lot of weight, kept it off and are living happier lives. All well and good, but were they filled with the Holy Spirit? There is a difference between self-control which is the fruit of self-directed resolve, ie self-will, and self-control which is the fruit of spiritual struggle.

Rick H.

30-12-2009, 04:14 PM

Very good Anna! Thank you. I should have spent more time reading and trying to understand. Looks like you might be taking over Herman's job of bringing me up to speed when I am not able to see the big picture. When I printed out your last post and went over it, the following got the pink hi-lighter:

In the Church we don't engage directly in trying to free ourselves from the passions.

while the following did not receive any highlighting or markings of any kind (someone will probably make a crack about my highlighters, but I will share with you that pink is #1 in importance or first level headings, yellow is #2 or for second level subheadings, and blue is either for parenthetical expressions or things of minor importance . . . do you think I might have OCD?); but, the following didn't even get any blue:

We must actively be engaged, in this battle but we don't depend on our own strength to be sufficient.

But, I see now that in your post you are sharing what Dr. Charles Stanley used to share in just about every message I ever heard him preach and this was one of not relying on ourselves; but to rely and depend fully on God. Dr. Stanley used to spend much time preaching on the fruits of the Spirit as well and I remember in one of his books he wrote that sometimes, he was hesitant to preach on this because he was worried that some people would hear this and then run out the door ready to try to produce the fruits of the Spirit on their own, in their own power by struggling to do this on their own.

So thanks for the extra effort here.

About my comment on "a blind faith," maybe I am getting to know you a bit too; because as I typed that it did bring to mind our past discussion and I wondered if it would solicit any comments from you on a spiritual father ;)

Now, if someone can come into this conversation and bring me up to speed on what seems to be a disagreement, on what a passion is, then I can die a happy man.

I won't name names and try to start a fight, but for anyone following this thread there have been quotes supplied by some monachos members, from the treasury, that show that some Fathers considered passions to include good natural impulses and in this a wide definition of what a passion is as presented by the Fathers; but, others have written of a more narrow definition of the passions which has been handed down to us by the Fathers showing that passions are distortions of these good natural impulses and only things/impulses that dominate us, things that we experience/suffering passively.

Those holding the first view above are pretty entrenched in their position, and it seems those holding the second view are sticking to their guns too.

And, at the risk of being accused of throwing a tantrum here . . . this has nothing to do with a desire for handbook theology (or even a pocket dictionary of terms); if anything this has to do with me not desiring to play 'whack a mole' anymore or not desiring to play the part of Lou Costello in some kind of theological "Who's on First" routine?

Rick H.

30-12-2009, 05:30 PM

For the 'for what it's worth' category, here's what I have learned so far in this class. This is kind of rough, but it's all I have.

First, in terms of a working definition for this class:

Passion: from the Greek word pathos, which means 'to suffer', specifically in the sense of passively suffering.

1.) anything that entrenches itself in a man, and dominates and entraps him, and prevents him from conformity to Christ and growth into His Kingdom.

a. intimately connected to the idea of something which has come to dominate -- to render the person the passive recipient, rather than the active lord, of his or her created estate.

Second, in terms of the three faculties of the soul:

The Three Aspects/Powers of the Soul

A.) Passions affecting the appetitive faculty -- desire

examples: gluttony, greed, drunkenness, unchastity, adultery, uncleanness, licentiousness, love of material things and the desire for empty glory, gold, wealth and the pleasures of the flesh.

B.) Passions affecting the incensive faculty -- anger

examples: heartlessness, hatred, lack of compassion, rancour, envy, murder

C.) Passions of the intelligence -- reason

examples: unbelief, heresy, folly, blasphemy, ingratitude

Third:

1.) Passions of the Body

examples: gluttony, greed, over-indulgence, eating in secret, general softness of living, unchastity, adultery

2.) Passions of the Soul

examples: forgetfulness, laziness, ignorance. These give way to: impiety, false teaching or every kind of heresy, blasphemy, wrath, anger, bitterness, irritability

I still do not have enough of an understanding to make any notes about what a natural passion is or what an unnatural passion is. I think my last question in my last post may have a strong bearing on whether or not there is even such a thing as a natural passion or not.

I.) Natural Passions

II.) Unnatural Passions

Anna Stickles

30-12-2009, 06:06 PM

About my comment on "a blind faith," maybe I am getting to know you a bit too; because as I typed that it did bring to mind our past discussion and I wondered if it would solicit any comments from you on a spiritual father ;)

Well hopefully if our conversations tend to go in predictable cycles we are spiraling up and not down. ;)

Now, if someone can come into this conversation and bring me up to speed on what seems to be a disagreement, on what a passion is, then I can die a happy man.

Well, I think part of the difficulties with discussion lie in the very first thing that Fr Dcn Matthew said.

A right orientation towards the Kingdom of God sets the heart in the only position whereby it may accurately struggle in a Christ-like way in this world. Not only does it come to see its foe more directly—that is, the external spiritual realm which wages battle against the righteous—but it also is given the perspective to understand its own internal warfare. That is, an orientation of life past the sinful confines of this world, toward the eternity of the Kingdom, allows man to see his fallen self more authentically, discovering in himself those things which prevent him from conformity to Christ and growth into this Kingdom.

Part of our struggle is coming into a right orientation, and part of the problem with not being in a right orientation is that we don't see clearly. ie. How we perceive ourselves in relation to our passions and how we perceive those passions changes as we grow.

One thing that is important to recognize is that the mind has this tendency to be impatient and want to know. It tries to penetrate into that which is rightfully the realm of the nous. This is a passion, a distortion of the proper working of our faculties. To fix the problem the mind has to learn to wait and be submissive. One has to struggle against the passionate demand that our questions be answered and learn to be content with having holes in our knowing, trusting that true knowledge grows with experience and enlightenment. This is one of the reasons why we are instructed in our spiritual reading time, NOT to read analytically, but to simply read and let things soak in at a deeper level.

Pink and yellow markers aren't going to supply what is lacking in intuition. ;) At least ii seems to this lamb of little brain that that's what the Fathers teach about the ascetical struggle with the mind.

Owen Jones

30-12-2009, 06:06 PM

My sense is that in the Orthodox ascetic tradition, the two tracks regarding the passions apply primarily, if not exclusively to the appettitive. The one track says that all desire must be crucified. The other says that all desire must be transfigured and re-oriented toward its true object. The one says all passion is bad and the goal is impassability. The other says that God has placed desire (eros) in us for the purpose of seeking Him. Again, the glossary in the Philokalia is a great place to start.

Also, IMHO, it is always the intellectual passions that are the most destructive. The sin of Adam is essentially an intellectual one. One might include self-deception in this, or the tendency of the intellect to be easily tricked. Pride of intellect has always been at the top of the list, as far as I can tell. And I think idolatry is essentially an intellectual passion. The religious conceit, the problem with the Pharisees, is the intellectual passion that is not properly ordered on its true object. Intellectualizing faith is the most serious obstacle to true spiritual growth and transformation. It completely blocks spiritual receptivity. The Pharisees are constantly intellectualizing what Jesus is teaching and doing. This is true with any kind of fundamentalism, which is ironically not anti-intellectual as it is usually portrayed. It's too intellectual.

Mary

30-12-2009, 06:37 PM

Rick, you're gonna love this - I'd like to add to the mess that's partially clearing up. I've been digging around in the closet, using Fr Matthew's definition of passion, for a flashlight.

Just briefly: I would reiterate that to the Fathers writing in Greek, 'passion' clearly comes from the Greek word pathos, which means 'to suffer', but specifically in the sense of passively suffering. So 'passion' is intimately connected to the idea of something which has come to dominate -- to render the person the passive recipient, rather than the active lord, of his or her created estate.

INXC, Dcn MatthewThe seemingly two views of passion might possibly be the two sides of the same coin.

I gave a bit more thought to natural passions, that may be good (I'd rather call them neutral), placed in us by God for survival. The easiest example to work with is the need to eat. Gluttony has been defined as living to eat. And they say that if you learn to eat to live, you'll stop being a glutton. That may be true. But I did a bit more digging, to see if eating to live is a good thing, or if it could turn bad. I found that, it doesn't turn bad. It remains neutral. All animal life, eats to live. They do not gorge themselves. They do not kill more than is needed for food. They do not waste any food they find. They have an incredible degree of self control. So then, if we master the art of eating just enough to live, we've become as good as the animals. Is that our goal?

There's something more for human beings, than to be as responsible as animals. They use their natural impulses to survive. For us, life is more than survival. Or else, it should be. So for us, we don't need to eat to live. We need Christ to live. Even a good, well-balanced life, is of no use to us, if we don't have Christ.

So, in that sense, whether passions are pathological diseases of the soul, or natural impulses that are neutral and necessary, it really makes no difference. We don't need them. We don't even need to eat. (And many saints did get to that place).

Anna Stickles

30-12-2009, 08:16 PM

Owen,

The one track says that all desire must be crucified. ....

The one says all passion is bad and the goal is impassability. The other says that God has placed desire (eros) in us for the purpose of seeking Him.These two sentences I quoted are not contraries, as you seem to be implying. Most of the writers I have read, if not all, say that passion is bad and that the goal is impassibility and that God has placed divine eros in us for the purpose of seeking Him.

It is a mistake to equate desire with passion. It is very different things to say that all passion must be crucified and that all desire must be crucified. The latter is what stoicism or some Zen philosophies say. It's a corrupted understanding of ourselves.

It is a major mistake to equate impassibility with lack of desire. This is precisely the mistake we have been trying to avoid. Desire is a natural aspect of the soul. Passion is the corruption of desire - more then just desire oriented on the wrong objects but desire experienced in the wrong way. Passion can also be a twisting of the incensive faculty - ie an irrational aversion to something. Irritation, fear, wanting to be left alone when someone wants to talk to us, not wanting to pray.... etc.

Jesus came to give us life, and give it to the full. We see in the lives of the saints that they did not stop feeling nor desiring, but that in fact they are the ones who desired more fully, and felt things more acutely. This is what enabled them to become saints.

Maybe there are individual ascetics in the Philokalia that say that all desire be crucified. (quotes might be helpful) but I don't think that this is what the wider Tradition teaches. Certainly none of the Fathers are infallible on all points, and there needs to be some judgement as to what the wider tradition is actually saying.

Rick H.

30-12-2009, 08:38 PM

Anna--You and Owen both made your posts at 12:06 PM, so I don't think he is implying anything about you post. Also, I am reading the Philokalia Glossary entry for "Temptation" at the present. I think this is what Owen has referred to twice now for us to read. This is broken down into:

(i) Provocation

(ii) Momentary disturbance

(iii) Communion

(iv) Assent

(v) Prepossession

(vi) Passion

I wonder if you have time to take a look at this to see how this effects our thread? I wonder if you have a copy handy Mary . . . I think this moves us in the direction of your last post, in terms of "it really makes no difference."

Owen Jones

30-12-2009, 08:50 PM

Owen

30-12-2009, 08:58 PM

Change "desire" to "the passions" and your statement will be accurate.

Mary

30-12-2009, 09:07 PM

I wonder if you have a copy handy Mary . . . I think this moves us in the direction of your last post, in terms of "it really makes no difference."

Nope! The Philokalia is for the Big Kids. I'm still in kindergarten. =)

Rick H.

30-12-2009, 09:35 PM

That's okay Mary, it looks like we are going to be backing this train up a bit here anyway.

In the meantime, I'll see if I can get my daughter to scan that entry for me so I can post it in the near future.

Michael Stickles

30-12-2009, 10:49 PM

A little "sidebar" to the discussion which I hope might prove useful to some, as it often has to me.

The book How to Read a Book has a section which, while specifically about reading difficult books, I think can apply with a little modification to dealing with difficult practical doctrines, like the passions.

Everyone has had the experience of struggling fruitlessly with a difficult book that was begun with high hopes of enlightenment. It is natural enough to conclude that it was a mistake to try to read it in the first place. But that was not the mistake. Rather it was in expecting too much from the first going over of a difficult book. Approached in the right way, no book intended for the general reader, no matter how difficult, need be a cause for despair.

What is the right approach? The answer lies in an important and helpful rule of reading that is generally overlooked. That rule is simply this: In tackling a difficult book for the first time, read it through without ever stopping to look up or ponder the things you do not understand right away.

Pay attention to what you can understand and do not be stopped by what you cannot immediately grasp. Go right on reading past the point where you have difficulties in understanding, and you will soon come to things you do understand. Concentrate on these. Keep on in this way. Read the book through, undeterred and undismayed by the paragraphs, footnotes, comments, and references that escape you. If you let yourself get stalled, if you allow yourself to be tripped up by any one of these stumbling blocks, you are lost. In most cases, you will not be able to puzzle the thing out by sticking to it. You will have a much better chance of understanding it on a second reading, but that requires you to have read the book through at least once.

So, if something isn't "clicking", blip past it for the moment. Find the things that make sense and apply them. After a bit of practice, go back and see if some of the problem spots are making more sense. Then take the increased understanding back to your practice. "Study, apply, repeat."

In Christ,
Michael

Rick H.

31-12-2009, 12:03 PM

Let's back up a bit. It was not my intention to equate the passions with desire. Desire refers to the appetitive nature, and as such is neutral, as far as it goes. It depends on the object of the desire. But I think I am on firm ground in saying there are two schools of thought on this among the desert Fathers. One saying the goal is to eliminate desire, and one is to transfigure desire.

Change "desire" to "the passions" and your statement will be accurate.

Mike,

Yes, sometimes as we gain an introduction to a subject we have to read superficially even in matters of doctrine. The German and Swiss theologians are a perfect example of this, all must gain an entrance to their thought by means of the shallow end. But, just in an effort to make sure we are (all) on the same page in this thread, on more than one level, what we are dealing with is a clear case of opposing views, or as has been said, "two tracks" or "two schools of thought." There is nothing to read over. Any attempts to read in a shallow way in the hope that things will be absorbed in a deeper way does not apply here. This is different from things not clicking. This does not have anything to do with intuition, or contemplation of the divine logos for that matter--you know, 'sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.' For example, in this most recent turn, it is not a case of "you say 'potato' and I say 'pototo.' "

You know, we can talk about the nous and resolve things by saying "Oh it's all just so mystical" until the cows come home, but anyone who has read--even on a cursory level--the writings, 'the source documents as Pooh says,' available to us in Church History can see at a glance the "methodology" in this thread is representative of the type of communication we see in the letters of Orthodox Christians written back and forth to each other. Usually, in a very direct style, they hashed out their differences on doctrinal and practical matters in their day, there was no hiding behind anything, and sometimes it was a messy business.

Otherwise, while we are searching for the right track here with this train at the present, I wonder if you see anything in my outline on the last page that seems inaccurate?

PS Owen Jones, thanks.

Anna Stickles

01-01-2010, 02:50 AM

Desire refers to the appetitive nature, and as such is neutral, as far as it goes. It depends on the object of the desire. But I think I am on firm ground in saying there are two schools of thought on this among the desert Fathers. One saying the goal is to eliminate desire, and one is to transfigure desire.So there is one school of thought that says that the goal is to eliminate/destroy part of our nature? Quotes please. with enough context to tell what is really being said. This just seems to me too far out. It goes against the whole basic tenet of Orthodox theology.

Me thinks some kind of misunderstanding is going on.

Michael Stickles

01-01-2010, 03:09 AM

But, just in an effort to make sure we are (all) on the same page in this thread, on more than one level, what we are dealing with is a clear case of opposing views, or as has been said, "two tracks" or "two schools of thought." There is nothing to read over.

Rick - calm down, pal. No need to "shout".

If this "two schools of thought" thing is really seen as a problem, then we need to bring them both in to look at. If all we have is a statement of the dichotomy, just "some say A, others say B", then we have nothing to work with. I've read statements from the Fathers which put forward "View A" as mentioned earlier. I have never read anything in the Fathers which puts forward "View B" (not that that means much, given how little I've read compared to what's out there), so I have no basis for addressing it. Maybe someone can provide either quotes or references of Fathers who held "View B" as it was put forward earlier:

the passions are impulses originally placed in man by God and are fundamentally good, and while they have been distorted by sin, they are NOT to be uprooted or eradicated; but, instead they are to be educated, transfigured, and used positively.

But, frankly, if we don't have examples of that view, then as far as I'm concerned we have to "read over" it because we have no way to deal with it, no way to evaluate it, no way to be sure how it does or does not fit in with "View A" (for which we have had some examples provided). All we can do is make idle speculations.

In Christ,
Michael

Rick H.

01-01-2010, 03:21 AM

Sorry Mike, I didn't mean that to be shouting, I was copying you from your last post where you put a key sentence in bold font type . . . that will teach me for trying to be one of the cool kids! As well, as a rule, I try to avoid shouting at guys who know martial arts and who are within driving distance of my house. :)

I agree with what you said about examples. Maybe when Herman the Pooh gets back from his big adventure, and when he has access to his library he can help us out from his more informed perspective.

Michael Stickles

01-01-2010, 03:41 AM

My bad - that sentence was in italics in the original book, but since the forum automatically puts quotes in italics, I used bold instead; forgot to mention what I was doing there. Maybe I should use underlining instead (so it doesn't look so "loud")...

Paul Cowan

01-01-2010, 08:14 AM

Dear Rick and Michael,

Perhaps you two need to re-read Fr. Dcn's post on this topic again to refresh your memories on the proper use of Bold Face fonts (http://www.monachos.net/forum/group.php?do=discuss&discussionid=2).

Paul

Rick H.

01-01-2010, 04:52 PM

I have a feeling that this conversation may have stalled just a little bit at the present.

So, if this is true, I'd like to leave off for now with a marker, a repeat of an outline, that shows what I think we have learned in the past 2 1/2 weeks so we can keep things as straight as possible. Any comments, suggestions, corrections on this would be much appreciated. With the permission of those who are bold face font haters, this is where I think we have ended up (in terms of what we can all agree on):

Passion: from the Greek word pathos, which means 'to suffer', specifically in the sense of passively suffering.

1.) anything that entrenches itself in a man, and dominates and entraps him, and prevents him from conformity to Christ and growth into His Kingdom.

a. intimately connected to the idea of something which has come to dominate -- to render the person the passive recipient, rather than the active lord, of his or her created estate.

______________________________________________

The Three Aspects/Powers of the Soul

A.) Passions affecting the appetitive faculty -- desire

examples: gluttony, greed, drunkenness, unchastity, adultery, uncleanness, licentiousness, love of material things and the desire for empty glory, gold, wealth and the pleasures of the flesh.

B.) Passions affecting the incensive faculty -- anger

examples: heartlessness, hatred, lack of compassion, rancour, envy, murder

C.) Passions of the intelligence -- reason

examples: unbelief, heresy, folly, blasphemy, ingratitude

_____________________________________________

1.) Passions of the Body

examples: gluttony, greed, over-indulgence, eating in secret, general softness of living, unchastity, adultery

2.) Passions of the Soul

examples: forgetfulness, laziness, ignorance. These give way to: impiety, false teaching or every kind of heresy, blasphemy, wrath, anger, bitterness, irritability

Paul Cowan

01-01-2010, 05:41 PM

Rick,

Forgive me if I am jumping ahead a semester in this course, but if anyone has a copy of Unseen Warfare, you might want to read chapters

17 "In what order should you fight your passions",
18 "How to fight sudden impulses of passions", and
19 "How to struggle agianst bodily passions".

Of course there are other chapters talking about the passions, but titled under different headings.

Paul

Rick H.

01-01-2010, 07:13 PM

Thanks Paul.

A friend sent me a copy of "The Monastic Rule" by St. Nilus Sorsky yesterday. In this I am seeing what appears to be a very similar (if not the same) presentation of what we see in the Philokalia Glossary area that Owen recommended to us. It seems that just as a picture of what the passions are is coming into view, with your help and others a view of how to fight/struggle with the passions is coming into view as well. So this is pretty good.

I think we are heading in the direction that you have suggested (possibly sooner than later). I would like to get a copy of Unseen Warfare. I suggested this book to a friend in Italy, based on Fr. Sparks works, and she got a copy of Scupoli's work in Italian and said it is a very helpful book.

It might have even been Andreas who recommended this book to me a few moons ago, and when I looked for it I saw a couple different translations. Is there one translation that is more accepted in Orthodoxy that you can recommend to me to buy Paul?

I wonder if there are any key passages that really struck you that you would like to reproduce here? Even if we don't really get in to them right now, we can have them to loop back to like Anna's posts on the second page of this thread that we intend to return to when the time is right.

Paul Cowan

01-01-2010, 07:54 PM

Is there one translation that is more accepted in Orthodoxy that you can recommend to me to buy Paul?

Yes, the one done in ENGLISH. I can't read any other language Rick. ;)

I can't seem it find it at St. Vlad's Press anymore but here it is (http://www.amazon.com/Unseen-Warfare-Spiritual-Paradise-Lorenzo/dp/0913836524)from Amazon. I can't imagine anyone paying $121.00 for any book, so go with a used one or I will send you my heavily marked up, dog eared one.

I don't want to retype (typos) the whole chapter, but here is the bulk of Ch 17 "In what order should you fight your passions?"

It would be very useful for you, my brother, to know well the order in which you should fight your passions, so as to do this work as it should be done, instead of simply haphazardly, as some people do, without great success, and at times even with harm to themselves. The order in which it is necessary to fight your enemies and struggle with your bad desires and passions, is the following: enter with attention into the heart and examine carefully with what thoughts, dispositions and passionate attachments it is specially occupied, and which passion is most predominant and tyranically rules there, Then against this passion first of all take up arms and struggle to overcome it. On this one concentrate all your attention and care, except only at the times when some other passion happens to arise in you. In that case you should deal with this one without delay and drive it away, after which you must once more turn your weapopns against your chief passion, which constantly manifests its presence and power. For as in every kind of warfare, so in our unseen battle, we must fight first what is actually attacking us at the present moment.

Ok, so that is the whole chapter. I couldn't see anything I could have left out and still make sence of what he was saying. The other two chapters are much longer and I can't see cutting out much there either.

Michael Stickles

01-01-2010, 08:08 PM

I can't seem it find it at St. Vlad's Press anymore but here it is (http://www.amazon.com/Unseen-Warfare-Spiritual-Paradise-Lorenzo/dp/0913836524)from Amazon. I can't imagine anyone paying $121.00 for any book, so go with a used one or I will send you my heavily marked up, dog eared one.

Dormition books (http://www.dormitionbooks.com/catalogue.html) still lists it (for less than Amazon's used price), you could see if they still have any in stock. Look under the heading "Guides for the Spiritual Life". I didn't see any used bookstores online with used copy prices much better than Amazon (after including shipping).

Anna Stickles

01-01-2010, 08:13 PM

Rick,

Just to back up briefly, and hopefully, not to cause additional confusion, but on "natural passions" it is patristic to say that we are naturally passionate in the sense that the ability to change and to suffer, ('suffer' not as in "it hurts" but as in "we suffer ourselves to be led" ie, to be acted upon by something outside ourself,) is intrinsically part of our created nature. I prefer the word 'passible' instead of 'passionate' to refer to this. We say that God is impassible in the sense that He is not moved by anything outside Himself. We are passible in the sense that we are subject to movement and change depending on what we are in communion with.

Most if not all of Catholic and Protestant soteriologies are un-orthodox because they deny, whether outrightly, or by unexamined apriori assumption, this basic reality of our passibility, either partially or completely. The whole doctrine of deification rests on this vision of human nature; and where it lacks, a faulty or non-existent view of deification develops.

I think though that this is definately getting outside the scope of this thread to pursue this topic. I guess the main thing to keep in mind is that in our fallen state we are passible (maybe we could use the word permeable?) to a fallen reality which is causing our passions. It is through becoming passible to God, and thus uniting with Him that we become to a greater degree impassible to the fallen reality.

Although I think even the saints don't become totally impassible to the fallen reality, but rather share the kenosis of Christ to the degree they are able and God wills. In Christ, the Christian willingly suffers immersion in this fallen reality and struggles with Christ in redeeming it from it's fallen state. This is what it means when it says we are baptized into His death and raised to life with Him. This humility is what is essentially lacking in the Eastern mysticisms where the goal is to escape suffering, ie to become impassible to our fallen reality. This humility of entering more deeply into the Fall and through this participating in Christ's work of bringing to fruition the resurrection of humanity, is the essence of spiritual labor and progress in Orthodox spirituality.

BTW I notice that "passible" is such an uncommon term it is not even in the dictionary. What does this say about our western phronema?

Rick H.

01-01-2010, 08:21 PM

Thanks again Paul!! Although that $121.00 book is going to be a problem, I don't normally shell out that much money for a book I haven't at least skimmed through first. I don't remember this being so high last time I looked at these books. I guess I'm in the market for a used book.

I appreciate the writing you shared directing us toward our chief passion first. This makes good sense to me. I have read in other Orthodox literature that for those afflicted with it, the passion of gluttony should always be the first passion to fight against; but, this makes perfect sense what you have shared with us via this book.

Otherwise, as you wrote:

Yes, the one done in ENGLISH. I can't read any other language Rick. ;)

This still cracks me up as I read it now, and I guess you do know that you have been corrupted by me and Mike very quickly to the point where you are now suffering from the passion of bold face font!

I wish I could find someone to buy my Protestant library all at once and just make the majority of it disappear. I've got about $9,000 in mostly reference books that I don't want anymore taking up a lot of space. I used to think I was blessed with books, now I think I am cursed with books, if you know what I mean. What I need to do is find someone who used to be an Orthodox priest who became a Protestant and we can trade libraries.

That's too bad, I was hoping to just hear from you and add that book to the one I have in my shopping cart that Mary recommended and hit the one click ordering button and be good to go.

PS I just remembered don't talk about Amazon here or somebody will really let you have it ;0) . . .for that matter it just occurred to me that you talked about your copy that you have that is "marked-up," that's a no-no too there's another somebody here who is on a campaign to do away with highlighters and markers for some of us!!! :O)

Anna Stickles

01-01-2010, 08:29 PM

CBD also has Unseen Warfare (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=36524X) $16.99 Sorry I just noticed it said, available to ship May 1, 2010. I guess they are waiting for a new printing.

M.C. Steenberg

01-01-2010, 08:36 PM

Dear all,

I'm sorry I don't have more time to give to this discussion at present, but I did want to say one thing on the query over whether the passions are to be seen, fundamentally, as things evil to be eradicated, or as things good to be purified of their deficiencies. In this discussion, it has revolved around a basic 'working definition' of two views, offered quite a few pages back as follows:

VIEW: A

Some feel the passions are evil and unnatural (alien to a mans 'true self'), a disease of the soul, and are to be uprooted and eradicated.

VIEW: B

However, some feel the passions are impulses originally placed in man by God and are fundamentally good, and while they have been distorted by sin, they are NOT to be uprooted or eradicated; but, instead they are to be educated, transfigured, and used positively.

Allow me to outline why I think the existence of 'View B' is problematic. Essentially, it attempts to read the Fathers through the linguistic terminology of modern-day English (where 'passion' is regularly a synonym for 'emotion'), as well as modern-day paradigms of personhood.

There are not a few Orthodox writers who have offered up 'View B' recently; but my question to them is always the same: where do we see the Fathers saying this? As far as I can tell, we do not -- and this is because to the (Greek) Fathers, 'passion' is connected inextricably to pathos, to passive suffering, to domination; and therefore 'passion' is evil. It is the perversion of creation. It is creation's captivity to something other than God; the reason-endowed creature's abandonment of reason and domination by some exterior power -- whether habits, deception, the demons, etc.

The reaction against this description of 'passion' and 'passions', and the desire to see passions as fundamentally good (or at least neutral) and evil only by perversion, stems from a confusion of emotive power with passion. The Fathers did not suffer from this confusion. They employed language and concepts that identified quite carefully and accurately the natural desires and appetites of our human, creaturely condition, which did not confuse these natural endowments with the fallen realities of their perversion and captivity. When the Fathers wished to speak of the good emotive capabilities in man, they did so; but they did not call these passions. The idea of a 'good passion', of a 'good passive domination', is patristically nonsensical.

It is true that at times the Fathers speak in different ways about how we are to approach the ascetical task of combatting our passionate state. Some speak of destroying the passions, of eliminating them. Some speak, rather, of transfiguring them -- but their point is not to transfigure the 'bad passion' into a 'good passion', but to transfigure what has become passionate into what is not. To reclaim from domination that which ought not be dominated, and so transfigure the passionate person into one who is not bound by the passions. This transfiguration does not 'make good' the passion: it overcomes it. In this fallen world we may still remain bound by a world of sin, we may still remain 'captives' in this life to the power of sin and death and so meet suffering (pathos) by it -- but there can be fostered even here a 'blameless passion', in the sense of a domination that is not of our own will, which has itself become dispassionate through ascesis. This we see, for example in Christ. But even here, talk of 'blameless passion' speaks precisely of the overcoming of the passions in the heart (which are always blameworthy), such that the suffering we undergo is wholly that in which our heart has no blame, but which it endures through love and the communion of man in its heritage of sin.

Again, the attempt to see the passions as essentially good things that have become evil through misuse, seems to me a desire to read back into the Fathers a usage of 'passion' that is quite imprecise and tends to mean simply emotive desire, etc., in a general sense. When it is supported by calls upon texts in which the Fathers speak of 'transfiguring' passions, it fails to see the context of transfiguration overcoming the passions that is contained in those writings.

The Fathers are very clear that the emotive capabilities of man are granted by God - and these are of course good. But these are not passions. Love is not a passion; but love can become passionate. Anger is not a passion; though it can (very easily) become passionate (and indeed, some of the Fathers see it as so fundamentally dominating that they see it only as a passion, and never as a blameless emotive power; but some do).

This brings me to a brief exchange from a bit earlier in the thread. Owen (Seraphim) wrote:

Desire refers to the appetitive nature, and as such is neutral, as far as it goes. It depends on the object of the desire. But I think I am on firm ground in saying there are two schools of thought on this among the desert Fathers. One saying the goal is to eliminate desire, and one is to transfigure desire.

To which our other Owen replied:

Change "desire" to "the passions" and your statement will be accurate.

In point of fact, our first Owen is correct. There is no school of thought amongst the Desert Fathers that speaks of transfiguring the passions in any sense of reclaiming them as good. What they seek to reclaim is the authentic reality of desire (the appetitive aspect of the soul) from its passionate, fallen state. Some of these Fathers see desire wholly in passionate terms (i.e. that it is entirely domineering, with no good emotive reality beneath it), and thus urge its eradication; some see it as the passionate perversion of something good, to be reclaimed.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Rick H.

01-01-2010, 08:45 PM

Earlier in this thread we talked about relevant passages from the Ladder, and I was looking at the Dormition Skete site just now (thanks Mike!) and I saw a couple of books offered under the title of the Ladder. This is what Andreas recommended to me and this is what I was confused about in terms of 'which copy' to buy once before.

Here are two that are for sale at Dormition, I think there are others:

The Ladder of Divine Ascent by St. John Climacus The classic work on the spiritual life. Available in two formats:

Holy Transfiguration Monastery edition - Deluxe edition printed in red and black throughout. 336 pp. cloth. HTF1411 $42.00 Paulist Press edition - paperback. MEP6203 $30.00

I wonder if these are the same in terms of copy, or if another would be a good one to order in terms of a copy of the Ladder?

Look Paul they are using the dreaded bold face font at the Dormition Skete now! Oh the humanity! First the Hindenberg and now Dormition is using bold face font.

And, just when you think it can't get any better . . .

is it possible that this is my copy of Unseen Warfare courtesy of Mr. Google himself??? :0)

Unseen Warfare Theophan the Recluse wrote in his foreword: "The arena, the field of battle, the site where the fight actually takes place is our own heart and all our inner man. The time of battle is our whole life." This book is a classic in Orthodox spirituality, and rich in its references to the teaching of the saints and Fathers. 280 pp. MES6336 $18.00

Mike if this is it, I'm definitely going to put you in for a free pound of organic Sumatra Roast from Father David's private stash!

Paul Cowan

01-01-2010, 09:12 PM

Oh definitely get the Deluxe edition printed in red and black throughout. It just sounds so, pretty.

AH!

Dude, I am not typing out the whole book. There are way too many (,)'s in there. You would have thought they had heard of run on sentences back then.

I have also been wanting to get The Ladder of Divine Ascent. I'll split the cost with you. You read the first half of the book and then I"ll mail you the second half when you mail me the first half. I would insure that library of yours unless you want to be like the magician that St. Peter converted that burned his multi million dollar library of books. Even if you don't read it anymore, one little fire God forbid and poof, all gone.But then of course you have to catalogue them all.

Rick H.

02-01-2010, 03:41 PM

Just to back up briefly, and hopefully, not to cause additional confusion, but on "natural passions" it is patristic to say that we are naturally passionate in the sense that the ability to change and to suffer, ('suffer' not as in "it hurts" but as in "we suffer ourselves to be led" ie, to be acted upon by something outside ourself,) is intrinsically part of our created nature. I prefer the word 'passible' instead of 'passionate' to refer to this. We say that God is impassible in the sense that He is not moved by anything outside Himself. We are passible in the sense that we are subject to movement and change depending on what we are in communion with.

Anna,

Thanks for this. It is helpful to me in terms of my leaving the "natural passion" category and the "unnatural passion" category blank--with no definition--on my outline. This confirms to me that the term "natural passion" should be left off of an outline that would be used in an introduction to the passions.

I think we can say clearly that 'the passions are unnatural and alien to man's true self' as quoted in the Philokalia from the Ladder (step 26) . . . but even here to reword this into an expression like "unnatural passions" I think is not helpful. To me this would be in the same league as using the expression "Patristic Fathers." So I think best to leave that one alone too and not use the term "unnatural passion" in an introduction to the passions either.

As for now, I am happy to just continue reading and rereading Fr. Dcn. Matthew's last post. It is very clear and very straightforward, but I seem to keep coming back to this. I think I know that neither systematic theology nor elemental theology hold much of a place in Orthodoxy at all; but, I do love it when we find the puzzle piece that has been missing and put it in its place.

And, I see that on the list of passions that Paul shared on the first page of this post that "excessive love of order" is a passion, but as well on this same list we see that "nonsensicality" is a passion as well.

PS Father Deacon Matthew, thanks.

Anna Stickles

02-01-2010, 10:42 PM

. Anger is not a passion; though it can (very easily) become passionate (and indeed, some of the Fathers see it as so fundamentally dominating that they see it only as a passion, and never as a blameless emotive power; but some do).

In point of fact, our first Owen is correct. There is no school of thought amongst the Desert Fathers that speaks of transfiguring the passions in any sense of reclaiming them as good. What they seek to reclaim is the authentic reality of desire (the appetitive aspect of the soul) from its passionate, fallen state. Some of these Fathers see desire wholly in passionate terms (i.e. that it is entirely domineering, with no good emotive reality beneath it), and thus urge its eradication; some see it as the passionate perversion of something good, to be reclaimed.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

It seems then that what you are saying is that for the Fathers who see desire as being wholly passionate, it would be in the same sense that you describe anger above?

Do the statements by this group tend to be in the context of practical considerations of human weakness where maybe the group that speaks of reclaiming desire approach things with more of a focus on theological ideals which sees in our striving a shadow of the resurrection? In other words these schools aren't really at odds with each other per say, but rather each has a different focus depending probably on the particular temptations and circumstances that existed in that community.

BTW thanks for the whole post as this was helpful in clarifying a number of things.

Rick H.

04-01-2010, 03:47 PM

Admittedly, I have been very influenced by Fr. Dcn. Matthew's writing above, and have moved squarely into the View "A" school of thought. For the reasons stated in Fr. Dcn's. post above it seems clear to me that View "B" is 'problematic,' and that "The idea of a 'good passion', of a 'good passive domination', is patristically nonsensical."

I also appreciate the explanation:

It is true that at times the Fathers speak in different ways about how we are to approach the ascetical task of combatting our passionate state. Some speak of destroying the passions, of eliminating them. Some speak, rather, of transfiguring them -- but their point is not to transfigure the 'bad passion' into a 'good passion', but to transfigure what has become passionate into what is not.

So, with this disclaimer out of the way, I would like to offer an adjusted entry for our working definition of "passion:"

Passion: from the Greek word pathos, which means 'to suffer', specifically in the sense of passively suffering.

1.) an evil and unnatural thing (alien to a mans 'true self'), a disease of the soul, which entrenches itself in a man, and dominates and entraps him, and prevents him from conformity to Christ and growth into His Kingdom.

a. intimately connected to the idea of something which has come to dominate -- to render the person the passive recipient, rather than the active lord, of his or her created estate.

Although, frankly, I'm not sure about the word "evil" in this definition as it relates to what Fr. Dcn. has said about a passion being "domination by some exterior power -- whether habits, deception, the demons, etc."

I'm not sure if everything that would be considered an "exterior power" would also be considered "evil" . . . so if any have any thoughts on this I would appreciate it.

I think the word "unnatural" *is* helpful in this definition, but I'm honestly not sure about the word "evil."

As Fr. Dcn. has written:

Again, the attempt to see the passions as essentially good things that have become evil through misuse, seems to me a desire to read back into the Fathers a usage of 'passion' that is quite imprecise and tends to mean simply emotive desire, etc., in a general sense. When it is supported by calls upon texts in which the Fathers speak of 'transfiguring' passions, it fails to see the context of transfiguration overcoming the passions that is contained in those writings.

I think it is clear here and in his other writing in this post that the passions are not good but they are evil; but I could use a little more clarity as it relates to the question of are all things that are considered to be "exterior powers" evil?

Michael Stickles

04-01-2010, 06:37 PM

I think it is clear here and in his other writing in this post that the passions are not good but they are evil; but I could use a little more clarity as it relates to the question of are all things that are considered to be "exterior powers" evil?

I'm not sure, at least in the generic sense - but I would think that any "exterior power" which engages in domination or entrapment of souls either is evil, or is doing evil, or something like that.

In Christ,
Michael

Anna Stickles

04-01-2010, 08:35 PM

I'm with Mike. Unnatural doesn't quite cut it because the passions are harmful. Yes, I think evil is a good word. Someone once said, "the passions are hell". Its only in starting to engage more with them that we start to realize this. This becomes clear in Ch 7 of Romans. St Paul talks about the fact that it is trying to follow the law that brings the passions to life. Before this they were "dead" and we were "alive" (so we thought) but once we accepted the law as our tutor (thus the importance of obedience to the ascetical life of the Church) they became active and we passive, they became "alive" and we "died" (vs 9)
Here's the classic statement of our battle.
Rom 7:5-6 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
If we engage in the battle, the condition that we can expect it to bring us to is the realization of our wretchedness. All the saints attest to this.
23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
and it is freedom through the grace of God, that we hope to find. This is the freedom the saints have found.
25 Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! ...the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.I think we find ourselves all to often in the situation that C.S. Lewis describes. The passions themselves have made us..." half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.” The Weight of Glory and other addresses, by C.S. Lewis.

In other words we don't really realize that the passions are evil because our own passionate state feels natural and we can't grasp the glory and freedom, the love and the joy that Christ offers his saints. That's why I like reading the books. They keep alive hope that these things are real. Even if we never quite get there (since many don't) at least it is something worth striving for, and something that God invites, even calls and pleads with us to strive for.

Or another way to put it, if we had a taste of the beautiful mountain air and then were locked in a dank, dark, dungeon we would consider whatever was holding us in the dungeon as evil. It's only because we haven't been outside that we don't consider those things keeping us in the dungeon as evil.

Rick H.

06-01-2010, 01:50 PM

Thank you both. So it looks like we will keep the word evil in our working definition which is:

Passion: from the Greek word pathos, which means 'to suffer', specifically in the sense of passively suffering.

1.) an evil and unnatural thing (alien to a mans 'true self'), a disease of the soul, which entrenches itself in a man, and dominates and entraps him, and prevents him from conformity to Christ and growth into His Kingdom.

a. intimately connected to the idea of something which has come to dominate -- to render the person the passive recipient, rather than the active lord, of his or her created estate.

As well, thanks to all who were gracious enough and willing to roll up their sleeves and pitch in with this to get us to this point. As it pertains to my other initial questions about:

1.) Passions of the Body
2.) Passions of the Soul

A.) Passions affecting the appetitive faculty
B.) Passions affecting the incensive faculty
C.) Passions of the intelligence [and differing from these passions of the 'intellect' and 'reason' . . . although not sure what the distinction is here]

I think we have defined our terms here well enough for an introductory/survey level as well, for which I am very grateful.

But, aside from these matters of the mind, I am also very grateful for the contributors of this thread who where sharing from the Grace that they have been given. And, much as Fr. Dcn. Matthew has written, as a result of this aspect of this thread (which does feed my heart), I can only hope that others, in addition to myself have gained a toehold that has turned into a fingerhold and from there a foothold in terms of gaining the perspective to understand better this internal warfare. In this there has been a sharing of the truth in love, from my point of view, and in this again as Fr. Dcn. has written, there has been the opportunity provided for a discovery . . . for a discovery in ourselves those things which prevent us from conformity to Christ and growth in His Kingdom. And, as it relates to our ascetical struggle, first hand we can see that "a right perception of them is essential in the ascetical struggle of the Christian."

This could not possibly be more clear to me now.

This is what makes many things click for me, and it is my hope that in the past few weeks (as well as in the future) the readers of this thread will benefit from what is presented here both in plain and simple language as well as what is presented in the language of Love.

So, with that said, part of me still desires to write something up that fully addresses the questions in my first post in a very direct way . . . in terms of something like, so the next time a guy like me comes along and asks these questions don't make him jump through hoops and fight his way through this with a machete to get some *simple* answers; but, instead here's what you tell him! . . . but, I think for now I will suppress this desire because I am just so happy about what has taken place in this thread to this point in terms of the end result.

But, I think we would all agree with the following:

Coming to understand the passions rightly is a critical need in the Christian life—and this is nowhere truer than in our present world, where the desires and impulses of the mind are often conceived of as good in themselves.

And, as we may move from where we have been so far to the place of where this quote speaks in terms of our own individual/personal lives, this does not involve a thread in a discussion group so much, does it? In fact, at this point, where we would come to understand the passions rightly in our own lives . . . I think most of us know that reading books and essays and internet posts can only bring us so far in the discovery process. And, we can remember the words of Owen in terms of this kind of discussion that we have had, this time of learning/introduction, and a pursuit of theory really can just get in the way, where the rubber-meets-the-road. A continuing with this approach, or worse yet after the aha! moment IF there is a dropping of what has been learned and a laying aside of the illumination (because now this question is finally answered), void of any kind of doing, void of any kind of real beginning in terms of spiritual combat, this would be a kind of tragic comedy.

So, with that said, and for the purposes of this conversation at this point, I wonder if it is time to move from the individual to the corporate. Or, in other words looping back to page two Anna wrote:

One of those things I see the modern elders mentioning quite a bit is that passions are not just an individual but a corporate problem. Hopefully we can get to this subject in this series of posts as things move along and talk about the consequences of this in practical terms. I'll have to look up a few quotes.

I would love to understand what the modern elders are saying about the passions as a corporate problem.

As well, possibly we can consider certain types/categories of passions, or individual passions, as Owen has written here:

Also, IMHO, it is always the intellectual passions that are the most destructive. The sin of Adam is essentially an intellectual one. One might include self-deception in this, or the tendency of the intellect to be easily tricked. Pride of intellect has always been at the top of the list, as far as I can tell. And I think idolatry is essentially an intellectual passion. The religious conceit, the problem with the Pharisees, is the intellectual passion that is not properly ordered on its true object. Intellectualizing faith is the most serious obstacle to true spiritual growth and transformation. It completely blocks spiritual receptivity. The Pharisees are constantly intellectualizing what Jesus is teaching and doing. This is true with any kind of fundamentalism, which is ironically not anti-intellectual as it is usually portrayed. It's too intellectual.

This was both very provocative and very convicting for me.

Or, as Mike initially mentioned and Paul mentioned more recently (via. Unseen Warfare), we could consider the struggle and the spiritual combat that takes place:

Forgive me if I am jumping ahead a semester in this course, but if anyone has a copy of Unseen Warfare, you might want to read chapters

17 "In what order should you fight your passions",
18 "How to fight sudden impulses of passions", and
19 "How to struggle against bodily passions".

Of course there are other chapters talking about the passions, but titled under different headings.

I found a copy of Unseen Warfare and ordered it yesterday BTW Paul.

Or, there is the option as one poster on the first page asked about one certain passion. So again, individual passions could be looked at on an introductory level here. In addition to Unseen Warfare, there have been references to The Ladder of Divine Ascent. Possibly, those who are reading this for lent could share with us about some of these references and others pertaining to the passions.

So we will see.

But, for now thanks again very much.

Anna Stickles

27-02-2010, 09:30 PM

"man learns through experience that every pleasure is inevitably succeeded by pain, and so he directs his whole effort toward pleasure and does all that he can to avoid pain... By doing this he hopes to keep the two apart from each other -- which is impossible-- and to indulge his self-love in ways that increase his pleasure and are entirely free from pain. Dominated by the passion of self-love, he is , it appears ignorant of the fact that pleasure can never exist without pain. For pain is intertwined with pleasure, even though this seems to escape the notice of those who suffer it. It escapes their notice because desire for pleasure is the dominating force in self-love, and what dominates is naturally always more conspicuous and obscures one's sense of what may also be present with it. Thus in pursuing pleasure and trying to escape pain out of self-love, we give birth to untold passions in ourselves" Maximos the Confessor, First Century on Various Texts 53
I was thinking about this the other day and thought it might be helpful for this thread as we continue to try to identify passions.

An analogy that came to mind is a mother that takes two children to the park. Both children have fun at the park and enjoy the play time. When it is time to come home she calls the children and one of them runs happily over but the other child starts to whine and complain. Obviously this second child has experienced a passionate pleasure in regards the playtime at the park. This passion when checked causes the child interior pain, which in turn causes all kinds of emotional and mental turmoil making it impossible for the child to happily obey his mother.

Or in the example of an older child, self-love can be seen in the fact they they don't want to do their school-work. They would rather read their fiction books or play computer games or go out with friends or whatever other activity brings them a passionate pleasure. And so when the passion is checked and a different activity like schoolwork is presented this causes a kind of dryness, boredom, wandering attention and other mental pain.

We see children who don't want to eat their dinner but simply want whatever tastes good instead and as parents we are aware of the amount of work it takes to wean the child out of this passionate propensity to the point where they will easily eat whatever is set before them and be restrained in regard to sweets.

What happens then when we try to check ourselves in regards to some pleasure we are used to? I think that we recognize this same kind of interior pain if we are attentive. Thoughts about this thing which are impregnated with a passionate desire start to rise up in our mind and keep trying to capture our attention, and won't leave us alone. We might even experience some kind of physical discomfort accompanying the psychological discomfort and the propensity to pursue pleasure and avoid pain kicks in and we satisfy the passion in order to escape the pain involved in denying it.

This is where asceticism comes in.
"What can I do for God? Nothing. In fact, I can't even seek Him; I can't even repent. But what I can do is to struggle. This means that I can commit myself to a life of asceticism, to the practice of spiritual exercises. And I will undertake such a commitment in a manner appropriate to my way of life, that is, depending on my situation, character, physical strength, psychological disposition, my history, my heredity, in terms of my gifts and so on. Whatever role these factors play, there will be a commitment to asceticism.

Earlier we said that pain begins with the experience of pleasure. Of course, we wanted only the pleasure, not the pain. But now I must embrace pain in order to regain true pleasure. Why? Because we were created for pleasure. God created Adam and Eve and placed them in the garden of "delights", for this is what the word "Eden" means.
... asceticism is a way in which I as a human being, set about attracting the attention of God. ... Does God have need of such activity? I will say only this: it is something I can do, and God wants me to do what I can. ...It's my preparation in order to seek, want, actively desire, love and finally, receive God. what we're attending to now are the preparations, just as we would sweep the house in preparation for a visit by our spiritual father. Thus I give expression to my inner disposition by enduring the coldness, and filth that is within me, and accepting my nakedness and acknowledging it before God.Asceticism is the way I cry out to Him. Arch. Aimilianos of Simonpetra, The Way of the Spirit p. 18-9