Christian Mysticism in Relation to Eastern Mysticism - Part 8

[Guest guest]

Dear All,

 

We concluded Part 7 with the following:

 

(p.245) " Dionysius says about the language we use to speak of God, that all

words like Father, Son, being, light, Word, Spirit, are communications or

revelations, but " their ultimate nature which they possess in their own original

being is beyond mind and beyond all being and knowledge. " So all words we use

about God are symbols in which divine reality is present but is beyond the grasp

of the mind. This is an extremely important point. Here we are at the heart of

mystical theology. God cannot be known directly. He is only known through signs

and symbols by which the divine mystery makes itself known. All the terms of the

biblical revelation are symbolic of that which utterly transcends them. This

links with the Buddhist and the Muslim view, no less than with that of Hinduism,

that in the Ultimate Reality, in 'sunyata' (the void) of Buddhism and in the 'al

haqq' (the truth) of Ibn al Arabi as in the 'brahman' of Hinduism, both unity

and difference are recognised. (p.246) It is not a matter of simple unity

because all the differences of the universe are somehow present in that Ultimate

Reality. So Dionysius says that all this creation with all its differences comes

forth from the divine being and in this way " it is differentiated without loss

of difference and multiplied without loss of unity, and from its oneness it

becomes manifold while remaining in itself. " That was exactly what Suzuki said

of 'sunyata', the void, as was said of 'brahman' in Hinduism and the 'al haqq'

in Sufi doctrine. It is one total unity and yet all the differences of the

universe come out from it while it remains the same. This is a paradox which

cannot be properly expressed. The reason it is insisted upon is that if it is

not held - and in each tradition there is a continuous movement of thought

seeking to express the paradox, to balance the opposites - the implication is

that ultimately the whole material universe and the whole human universe are

unreal. 'Brahman' or 'nirvana' alone is real, all else is unreal. But in this

more profound view all the multiplicity of creatures and of humanity, with all

their differences and distinctions, have reality in the Absolute. They are

present not in the way they appear here to our limited human time-space

consciousness, but in their eternal, absolute Ground of being and consciousness,

and therefore all human and created realities have real being in the Absolute. "

 

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

Chapter 11, P.245-246

 

Here now, is Part 8.

 

Enjoy,

 

violet

 

 

Christian Mysticism in Relation to Eastern Mysticism - Part 8

 

(p.246) Dionysius applied the same critique of language to the doctrine of the

Trinity. He says, " It is not a unity in Trinity which can be known by us or any

other creature, and we apply the names of unity and Trinity to that which is

beyond all being. " In other words, we simply use these names to point to a

reality which is beyond everything we can describe. This understanding is still

very prominent in the Eastern Orthodoxy and it is fundamental. The Trinity is

the Absolute, the Godhead, the Supreme Beyond, the unapproachable light, which

cannot be named. (p.247) It is unity in Trinity beyond all human comprehension.

Behind all this is that view which maintains that when we speak of God we first

use positive terms such as God, Father, Creator, Lord, Saviour, Spirit, grace,

love, beauty, truth. Speaking of God in positive terms such as these is known as

affirmative theology or the 'via affirmativa'. Next, however, we deny or negate

all those terms. We go on to say God is not God in any sense that we can

understand, nor is he truth in any sense we can understand, nor Father, nor Son,

nor Spirit, nor anything. God is utterly beyond. This stage where we deny all

that was previously affirmed is known as the 'via negativa', the negative or

apophatic way. But we then go beyond both the positive and the negative way to

the way of transcendence. Here God is God, Father, Son, Word, truth and love but

in a totally transcendent sense, beyond human comprehension. We can only point

to that Reality but we cannot express it. That is essential Christian mystical

doctrine. With these basic teachings Dionysius laid the foundations of mystical

doctrine in the Church. His views were taken up by the great scholastic

theologians, St Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure, and are still fundamental today.

So here in Dionysius there is a fully-developed mystical theology, comparable to

that of the Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim understanding.

 

In India Eckhart is very popular among Hindus because he comes nearer to Vedanta

than any other Christian, but unfortunately Eckhart expressed himself very

freely, especially in his German sermons. There is also the further complication

that he did not write them himself. They were taken down by others and so the

texts we have now may not express his position accurately. His language is often

deliberately paradoxical and can easily be misunderstood. Ruysbroeck, the

Flemish mystic, however, has practically the same doctrine as Eckhart but he

writes more from experience and his teaching is correspondingly profound.

Eckhart was more of a philosopher and gives the impression sometimes of playing

with words. Ruysbroeck, on the other hand, is obviously writing from a deep

experience of reality and his doctrine is all the more impressive. [7]

 

In Ruysbroeck there are some very original ideas. The basic Christian

understanding is that man is the 'ikon', the image of God. We have seen this to

be fundamental in Origen and in Gregory of Nyssa, and it comes also in

Dionysius. But now in Ruysbroeck there is the further understanding that this

image of God in man has its archetype in God. Each of us has an eternal

archetype in God where we are one with God in our eternal archetype.

 

This comes very near to the doctrine of Ibn al Arabi. He expresses almost the

same view in his teaching that everything in creation and everything in man

exists eternally in God. Creation comes forth eternally in God as God, without

any difference, and then it comes forth differentiated in time and space.

Originally it is God in God. So the image of God exists eternally in God, in its

archetype. Ruysbroeck says, " God utters himself in the Spirit eternally without

intermediary and in this Word he utters himself and all things. " In the

utterance of the Word which comes forth from the Father eternally the whole

creation, the whole of humanity, you and I and all created things, are present.

Everything and all beings are present in that eternal Word, eternally present

with God, in God and as God. We are all participating in the Infinite at that

stage, beyond creation. This is what is meant by our uncreated being in the

Godhead. Eckhart had the same idea but he expressed it less carefully while

Ruysbroeck puts it extremely well. He speaks of " a waylessness and darkness in

which we never find ourselves again in a creaturely way. " We lose ourselves in

that divine darkness. And he goes on to speak of God, this " God beyond " , as it

were, as " a simple nudity, an incomprehensible light " . (p.249) The one who has

reached this point " finds himself and feels himself to be that light, gazing at

that light, by that light, in that light. Here one has entered totally into the

Godhead and one knows in the light and by the light. This is exactly how it is

put in the Upanishads and in the 'Bhagavad Gita', where it is said that one

knows the 'atman', through the 'atman'. The 'atman' cannot be known by any other

means. God is grasped and held through God.

 

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

Christian Faith) Chapter 11, P.246-249

Bede Griffiths

Templegate Publishers - Springfield, Illinois

ISBN 0-87243-180-0

 

Notes:

 

[7] The quotations from Ruysbroeck are from 'The Adornment of the Spiritual

Marriage', translated by Wynschenk Dorn (J.M. Dent, 1916).