Christian Mysticism in Relation to Eastern Mysticism - Part 2

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

We commenced Part 1 of 'Christian Mysticism in Relation to Eastern Mysticism'

with:

 

(P.228) " The New Testament is built upon the tradition of the Old. The emphasis

is on the moral character of God, and personal language is used to speak of the

divine mystery. Jesus himself thinks and speaks in the context of this

tradition. On the other hand, whereas in the Old Testament God is totally above

creation, in the heaven of heavens above, and is, as it were, looking down upon

humanity on earth, Jesus in his person bridges that gulf. In him God becomes

man, so that he becomes the mediator between God and humanity. As we saw in the

last chapter, Jesus has a unique experience of God as Abba, Father, which he

expressed in saying, " No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows

the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. " [2]

(P.229) This experience of God, which is unique to Jesus, he now communicates to

his disciples by the gift of the Spirit. Christian mysticism is that experience

of God in the Spirit coming through Christ from the Father. This makes us

members, as we saw, of the mystical body of Christ. The whole of humanity is

brought together in principle in this unity of the Spirit, recovering the unity

which was lost through sin. This being brought back to unity extends to the body

itself. Not only the soul but also the body is recreated and renewed as a

spiritual body ('soma pneumatikon'), in the mystical body of Christ. The whole

person, and eventually the whole creation, is restored to unity with the Father,

in the Spirit, through the Son. That is the basic pattern of the Christian

revelation and of the Christian experience of God. "

 

A New Vision of Reality (Western Science, Eastern Mysticism and Christian Faith)

Chapter 11, P.228-229

 

Here now, is Part 2.

 

Enjoy,

 

violet

 

 

 

Christian Mysticism in Relation to Eastern Mysticism - Part 2

 

(P.229) To trace the development of Christian mysticism we move out from the

Hebrew, Semitic tradition into the Graeco-Roman world. In the Hebrew tradition,

as we saw, there was profound mystical experience but there was little

reflection on it. It was experienced and then expressed in symbolic language.

Here we must make a clear distinction between symbolic language and abstract

language. All ancient revelations, the Vedas, the Quran and the Bible, for

instance, are expressed primarily in symbolic language. This is because God

cannot be properly expressed: we can only speak of him in terms of analogy.

Symbols are concrete images. Jesus is constantly referred to in the Scriptures

in symbolic terms, for instance as Son of God, Son of Man and Messiah. When he

proclaims the Kingdom of God this is a profoundly symbolic image. People

normally approach God through symbols, through the external symbols of rites and

ceremonies and then through mental, imaginative symbols. In this way, through

the symbol or sign, they approach the transcendent beyond. But now, as capacity

for abstract, logical thought develops, rational, abstract language can be used

to examine the symbols. (P.230) This is a very important stage in all religious

traditions. Working on the symbols and images of experience, the rational mind

comes into play and begins to analyse and discern the exact meaning of the

symbols and images. That process began to take place at a very early stage in

India, as we saw with the Upanishads and the 'Bhagavad Gita', although symbolic

language was still used to a large extent. It was thoroughly developed in

Sankara and the later doctors of Vedanta who elaborated a fully philosophical

mystical doctrine. Nagarjuna and the Buddhist philosophers and Ibn al Arabi and

the Muslim philosophers, did the same for Buddhism and Islam respectively.

 

In Christianity the same process took place as the gospel moved out into the

Graeco-Roman world. In contrast to the mind of the Hebrew, the Greek mind is

essentially rational and analytical. It was the Greeks who introduced rational,

analytical thought to the West. Consequently, when the Church spread out into

the Roman Empire, the Greek mind began to work on the original Hebrew revelation

and to express its experience in categories derived largely from Greek

philosophy.

 

There are indications that the Greeks were influenced by Indian thought.

Pythagoras lived in the fifth or sixth century before Christ, around the time of

the Upanishads and the Buddha. It is said that he had been to India and there is

little doubt that he shows Indian influence. He believed for instance in

reincarnation, a doctrine which was rare in Greece at that time, and he

practised vegetarianism and taught the practice of silence in an organised

community, elements which seem to derive from the Hindu and Buddhist traditions.

If so, and this cannot be proved, there was a positive influence on the West

from Indian mystical experience at that time.

 

Plato himself was profoundly influenced by Pythagoras and inherited this

mystical tradition. (P.231) But again Plato, in his written works, always used

the language of rational, analytical thought, though there is obviously behind

it a mystical vision which comes out especially in some of his letters. There is

certainly a tradition of some hidden mystical wisdom in Plato, but what stands

out in his writings is their highly rational, intellectual character.

 

The other great influence on Christianity was Stoicism. Heraclitus had developed

the notion of the 'logos', the reason which orders the universe and in which

human reason participates, and this became the central doctrine of the Stoics.

Human reason in this view enables us to know the reason, the 'logos', of the

universe. The Christian writers in the second and third centuries inherited this

tradition and began to express their Christian faith in these terms. Justin

Martyr, for instance, in the second century speaks of the Word or Logos having

been know to Heraclitus and Socrates before it was revealed in Christ. But the

first person of importance to our purpose is Clement of Alexandria. Alexandria

was a centre where there were many influences from the East. It is almost

certain that there were Hindu and Buddhist monks in Alexandria in the first and

second centuries AD. So there was an influence from India already there. There

was also Gnosticism. The Greek word 'gnosis' is the same as the Sanskrit

'jnana', and it means knowledge in the sense of divine wisdom. There were

gnostics, both Jewish and Christian, who believed in an elaborate, secret

knowledge outside orthodox Judaism and Christianity but Clement, and Origen

following him, maintained that the true knowledge of God, true 'gnosis', was to

be found in the Church. Clement used the language of Stoicism and Platonism,

including, of course, the language of the 'logos'. In the Fourth Gospel St John

writes, " In the beginning was the Word ('logos') and the 'logos' was with God

and the 'logos' was God. " In using the term 'logos' he was certainly referring

back to Hebrew 'dabhar', the Word of God which came to the prophets. (P.232) But

'logos' was at this stage a very common term in Greek philosophy. So this was

the point where the Christian writers opened themselves to the Greek

philosophical tradition. They said that the same 'logos' which had been revealed

in Israel had also been present in the great Greek philosophers, in Heraclitus

and Socrates and the Stoics, and that that 'logos', that wisdom which orders the

world, had been manifested fully in Jesus Christ. So that was the point of

insertion where the Christian wisdom encountered the Greek wisdom.

 

Clement of Alexandria also made much of a characteristically Stoic term,

'apatheia'. 'Apatheia' does not mean our modern apathy or indifference. It means

rather a state beyond the passions. Here we touch again the typical Indian

experience that if one wants to reach the knowledge of God, the transcendent,

one has to be free from one's passions. So 'apatheia' was a freedom from passion

which created purity of heart and opened one up to the transcendent. The link

with the " purity of heart " of the Gospel is clear. In Clement for the first time

we have the understanding that this could lead to divinisation or deification

('theopoiesis) which means to be made God or rather to be made one with God.

This understanding of deification becomes a major trend in Christian mysticism

and is of great importance, for it links it immediately with the Indian

tradition.

 

A New Vision of Reality (Western Science, Eastern Mysticism and

Christian Faith)

Chapter 11, P.228-232

Bede Griffiths

Templegate Publishers - Springfield, Illinois

ISBN 0-87243-180-0

 

Notes:

 

[2] Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22