OK – where is your doctrine of individual sanctification?
Mysticism – a Christian response to a Baha'i statement
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
What seems to me overlooked, Tony, is that the Indwelling Presence of the Holy Spirit can, and does, 'flash through' as it were in the daily lives of individual people in the most mundane way – and no less a mystery for all that.
The simple act of kindness, of generosity, of compassion. It is rarely earth-shattering – that is not the way (the Holy Spirit, the Anonymous One, the Subtle One, is easily overlooked) – but it can indeed 'rock your world', alter a path and change a destiny.
It can be in a simple a gesture as opening a door ... it can be in a look, a word, a gesture ... it can also be in complete stillness and silence.
It can be a profound sense of an unknown knowing – even a glimpse of the veil is a proof that something lies beyond.
We speak of 'anonymous Christians', but that's silly, really, we are all anonymous, one to another, really. But none are unknown, or anonymous, to Christ, and even for those who do not know the name, they are known and, often, in their own way they know Him.
The simple act of kindness, of generosity, of compassion. It is rarely earth-shattering – that is not the way (the Holy Spirit, the Anonymous One, the Subtle One, is easily overlooked) – but it can indeed 'rock your world', alter a path and change a destiny.
It can be in a simple a gesture as opening a door ... it can be in a look, a word, a gesture ... it can also be in complete stillness and silence.
It can be a profound sense of an unknown knowing – even a glimpse of the veil is a proof that something lies beyond.
We speak of 'anonymous Christians', but that's silly, really, we are all anonymous, one to another, really. But none are unknown, or anonymous, to Christ, and even for those who do not know the name, they are known and, often, in their own way they know Him.
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,325
- Reaction score
- 572
- Points
- 108
To add to the discussion, one can note Juan Cole's article about Shaykh Ahmad and mysticism. It provides a thorough overview of Shaykh Ahmad's attitude towards Sufi mystics and what is really meant by "oneness." Here is an excerpt I find relevant for the dialogue between you and Tony:
"According to Shaykh Ahmad, while the divine Essence is inaccessible to ordinary believers, all humans possess attributes that constitute a manifestation to them of God. Therefore, although an annihilation of the divide between the seeker and God is impossible, it is possible to demolish the barrier between these persons and the internal manifestation of God within them. In Shaykh Ahmad's formulation, this is His manifestation to you by means of yourself; your annihilation is within yourself (wa lakinnahu zuhuruh laka bika fa fana'uka fika). Likewise, the "oneness" that is seen in multiplicity cannot be the oneness of God, since that would imply an identity between dust and the Lord of Lords. On the other hand, the created world does go back to a primal unity, sometimes mythically referred to as the Primal Water, wherein the first stable entity to emerge was the Primal Intellect. The Intellect is the first branch of the tree of eternity in of Saqurah, a garden of heaven.(13) It is thus possible that the mystic might be able to attain a perception of the unity of all created things on the plane of limited being, including the accidents and substances such as fill the Most Great Depth (al-`umq al-akbar), by annihilating the barrier between their individual psyches and the manifestations of God within them. This unity, Shaykh Ahmad says, is sometimes referred to as the Countenance of God. He is careful to say that what is being achieved is a perception of the unity of the manifestations of the Primal Water, not of the Primal Water itself, since what comes later cannot directly perceive principles that are prior to its existence.(14)
The interface of divine and human therefore lies inside human beings. When, in 1819, another Shi`i mystic, Muhammad Mahdi Astarabadi, asked Shaykh Ahmad for a commentary on the saying, "Whoso knows his self, knows his Lord." he replied that it was a variant attributed to the Imam `Ali of the Prophetic saying, "He who is most knowledgeable about his self, is most knowledgeable about his Lord." Al-
Ahsa’i states that the validity of neither of these reports has been challenged by the philosophers and clerics.(15) They have, however, differed as to its meaning, with many reducing it to insignificance by saying that the intent was that just as one cannot know one's self, one cannot know God. The real meaning of the saying, Shaykh Ahmad affirms, is that
in creating human beings God endowed them with being (often symbolized by Light and Water), which, since it is bestowed upon them from an external source, Shaykh Ahmad refers to as an extrinsic reality or essence (kunh min rabbih). The reason for which humans could accept the bestowal of being, however, is that they have a receptivity (qabiliyyah) to or patiency (infi`al) with regard to being, a receptivity that constitutes their intrinsic essence (kunh min nafsih). It is implied that ordinary human consciousness tends to reside in the intrinsic essence, and that special efforts must be made to break through to the extrinsic essence, which is that “self,” knowledge of which is equivalent to knowledge of one’s Lord. For knowledge of illumination would entail knowledge of the illuminator, and whoever has known an attribute has known the possessor of that attribute. He discusses at some length another metaphor for this sort of knowledge of the divine, encouraging the reader to consider a flame viewed in a mirror. Here the form of the flame is like extrinsic being, whereas its apparition in the mirror is like intrinsic or passive being. One cannot know essence of fire by means of its mirror-image, but one can attain some knowledge of the flame (its heat, for instance) by means of its actual form. In the same way, when perspicacious believers, the possessors of discernment, see their own extrinsic reality, their own divine light or endowed being, then they get a inkling of their Lord.
One begins one's spiritual evolution, of course, with a much fuller sense of one's intrinsic being than of one's extrinsic being. The former, which is nothing more than one's receptivity to the divine ontological light, is characterized by attributes and subjective consciousness, which form a cloud of glory that obscures one's God-given essence. How, then, may we attain a knowledge of the true self that would in turn lead to knowledge of our Lord? Shaykh Ahmad's answer might best be characterized as Shi`ite Zen. It is to strip away all ordinary consciousness. Just as, in Mu`tazilite theology, the scholastic stripped away (ta`til) the apparent attributes of God, ending only with the unadorned divine essence, so Shaykh Ahmad counsels a similar stripping away of apparent human attributes, as a means to self-realization."
"According to Shaykh Ahmad, while the divine Essence is inaccessible to ordinary believers, all humans possess attributes that constitute a manifestation to them of God. Therefore, although an annihilation of the divide between the seeker and God is impossible, it is possible to demolish the barrier between these persons and the internal manifestation of God within them. In Shaykh Ahmad's formulation, this is His manifestation to you by means of yourself; your annihilation is within yourself (wa lakinnahu zuhuruh laka bika fa fana'uka fika). Likewise, the "oneness" that is seen in multiplicity cannot be the oneness of God, since that would imply an identity between dust and the Lord of Lords. On the other hand, the created world does go back to a primal unity, sometimes mythically referred to as the Primal Water, wherein the first stable entity to emerge was the Primal Intellect. The Intellect is the first branch of the tree of eternity in of Saqurah, a garden of heaven.(13) It is thus possible that the mystic might be able to attain a perception of the unity of all created things on the plane of limited being, including the accidents and substances such as fill the Most Great Depth (al-`umq al-akbar), by annihilating the barrier between their individual psyches and the manifestations of God within them. This unity, Shaykh Ahmad says, is sometimes referred to as the Countenance of God. He is careful to say that what is being achieved is a perception of the unity of the manifestations of the Primal Water, not of the Primal Water itself, since what comes later cannot directly perceive principles that are prior to its existence.(14)
The interface of divine and human therefore lies inside human beings. When, in 1819, another Shi`i mystic, Muhammad Mahdi Astarabadi, asked Shaykh Ahmad for a commentary on the saying, "Whoso knows his self, knows his Lord." he replied that it was a variant attributed to the Imam `Ali of the Prophetic saying, "He who is most knowledgeable about his self, is most knowledgeable about his Lord." Al-
Ahsa’i states that the validity of neither of these reports has been challenged by the philosophers and clerics.(15) They have, however, differed as to its meaning, with many reducing it to insignificance by saying that the intent was that just as one cannot know one's self, one cannot know God. The real meaning of the saying, Shaykh Ahmad affirms, is that
in creating human beings God endowed them with being (often symbolized by Light and Water), which, since it is bestowed upon them from an external source, Shaykh Ahmad refers to as an extrinsic reality or essence (kunh min rabbih). The reason for which humans could accept the bestowal of being, however, is that they have a receptivity (qabiliyyah) to or patiency (infi`al) with regard to being, a receptivity that constitutes their intrinsic essence (kunh min nafsih). It is implied that ordinary human consciousness tends to reside in the intrinsic essence, and that special efforts must be made to break through to the extrinsic essence, which is that “self,” knowledge of which is equivalent to knowledge of one’s Lord. For knowledge of illumination would entail knowledge of the illuminator, and whoever has known an attribute has known the possessor of that attribute. He discusses at some length another metaphor for this sort of knowledge of the divine, encouraging the reader to consider a flame viewed in a mirror. Here the form of the flame is like extrinsic being, whereas its apparition in the mirror is like intrinsic or passive being. One cannot know essence of fire by means of its mirror-image, but one can attain some knowledge of the flame (its heat, for instance) by means of its actual form. In the same way, when perspicacious believers, the possessors of discernment, see their own extrinsic reality, their own divine light or endowed being, then they get a inkling of their Lord.
One begins one's spiritual evolution, of course, with a much fuller sense of one's intrinsic being than of one's extrinsic being. The former, which is nothing more than one's receptivity to the divine ontological light, is characterized by attributes and subjective consciousness, which form a cloud of glory that obscures one's God-given essence. How, then, may we attain a knowledge of the true self that would in turn lead to knowledge of our Lord? Shaykh Ahmad's answer might best be characterized as Shi`ite Zen. It is to strip away all ordinary consciousness. Just as, in Mu`tazilite theology, the scholastic stripped away (ta`til) the apparent attributes of God, ending only with the unadorned divine essence, so Shaykh Ahmad counsels a similar stripping away of apparent human attributes, as a means to self-realization."
This is a very interesting essay and one I'll have to read and think about ...
In another essay Cole notes:
The radical aspect of Shaykh Ahmad's thought is apparent in its revisionism and its dynamism. On the one hand, he clearly was motivated by what Harold Bloom called the "anxiety of influence," the desire of creative thinkers to somehow escape the conceptual and literary structures erected by their forebears where these are perceived as limiting.40 Shaykh Ahmad's acceptance of much in Ibn `Arabi's metaphysics while sharply criticizing the Andalusian Sufi himself, and his love-hate relationship with previous Shi`ite theosophers such as Mulla Sadra and Mulla Muhsin Fayz Kashani demonstrate this anxiety no less than do his his doctrinal innovativeness and his idiosyncratic scripture commentary.
(The World as Text: Cosmologies of Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsa'i by Juan Cole)
Suffice to say I'm influenced by the Traditionalists, Henry Corbin and Reza Shah-Kazemi who favour Ibn'Arabi – and if it comes down to opting for one or t'other, then I am inclined to think I'd favour Ibn'Arabi rather than Ahmad al-Ahsa'i – but let's wait and see...
The Ismaili scholar Reza Shah-Kazemi is a champion of interfaith dialogue, and I'll be reading Paths of Transcendence: Shankara, Ibn Arabi and Meister Eckhart on Transcendent Spiritual Realization.
Followed by: Henry Corbin Alone with the Alone: Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn Arabi.
In another essay Cole notes:
The radical aspect of Shaykh Ahmad's thought is apparent in its revisionism and its dynamism. On the one hand, he clearly was motivated by what Harold Bloom called the "anxiety of influence," the desire of creative thinkers to somehow escape the conceptual and literary structures erected by their forebears where these are perceived as limiting.40 Shaykh Ahmad's acceptance of much in Ibn `Arabi's metaphysics while sharply criticizing the Andalusian Sufi himself, and his love-hate relationship with previous Shi`ite theosophers such as Mulla Sadra and Mulla Muhsin Fayz Kashani demonstrate this anxiety no less than do his his doctrinal innovativeness and his idiosyncratic scripture commentary.
(The World as Text: Cosmologies of Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsa'i by Juan Cole)
Suffice to say I'm influenced by the Traditionalists, Henry Corbin and Reza Shah-Kazemi who favour Ibn'Arabi – and if it comes down to opting for one or t'other, then I am inclined to think I'd favour Ibn'Arabi rather than Ahmad al-Ahsa'i – but let's wait and see...
The Ismaili scholar Reza Shah-Kazemi is a champion of interfaith dialogue, and I'll be reading Paths of Transcendence: Shankara, Ibn Arabi and Meister Eckhart on Transcendent Spiritual Realization.
Followed by: Henry Corbin Alone with the Alone: Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn Arabi.
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
My doctrine of Sanctification would be embracing the Salvation of all humanity, for one and all, All for one. One for all.
"O my God, the God of bounty and mercy! Thou art that King by Whose commanding word the whole creation hath been called into being; and Thou art that All-Bountiful One the doings of Whose servants have never hindered Him from showing forth His grace, nor have they frustrated the revelations of His bounty. Suffer this servant, I beseech Thee, to attain unto that which is the cause of his salvation in every world of Thy worlds. Thou art, verily, the Almighty, the Most Powerful, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise." – Baha’u’llah, Baha’i Prayers, p. 146.
I found this, this is well said (Early 1900's)
The gospel for the Twentieth Century rises out of the heart of its greatest problems,— and few who are spiritually enlightened doubt the nature of that problem. The clashing ominous [t]est of issues of the practical world of today,— the issues of race, sect, class and nationality, all have one basic spiritual origin, and for that reason, we hope and believe one basic cure. . . .
The redemption of society, social salvation, should have been sought after first. The pragmatic test and proof of the fatherhood of God is after all whether belief in it can realize the unity of mankind; and so the brotherhood of man, as it has been inspirationally expressed. “Oneness of humanity” must be in our day realized or religion die out gradually into ever-increasing materiality. The salvation we have sought after as individuals in an after-life and another sphere must be striven for as the practical peace and unity of the human family here in this [world]. – Alain Locke, The Gospel for the Twentieth Century.
Regards Tony
Further thought on Shaik Ahmad al-Ahsa'i –
According to Shaykh Ahmad, while the divine Essence is inaccessible to ordinary believers, all humans possess attributes that constitute a manifestation to them of God. Therefore, although an annihilation of the divide between the seeker and God is impossible, it is possible to demolish the barrier between these persons and the internal manifestation of God within them.
This distinction is akin, I think, to the Heyschast Dispute in the Byzantine Church in the 14th century.
Gregory Palamas of Thessaloniki (1296-1359) saw a distinction between the essence (ousia) and the energies (energeia) of God.
While God in his Essence is unknowable and indeterminable, the 'vision' of God can be attained when his Energy (Activity) is seen with the eyes as the Uncreated Light.
Eastern Orthodox theologians generally regard this distinction as real and not just a conceptual distinction.
Historically, Western Christian thought has tended to reject the essence-energies distinction as real in the case of God. If I have it right, the Western position is that God's esse (being)/ousia (essence), is there is God's actus (activity)/energeia. One could go on to argue that God is present where He is active ...
Likewise, the "oneness" that is seen in multiplicity cannot be the oneness of God, since that would imply an identity between dust and the Lord of Lords.
I don't understand why he says this – I'd have to look into his reasoning – how that unity is expressed in Sufi thought. Or what expression he has an issue with.
in creating human beings God endowed them with being (often symbolized by Light and Water)...
I wonder does the Sufi also speak of breath (cf Genesis 2:7 Hb neshamah)?
... which, since it is bestowed upon them from an external source, Shaykh Ahmad refers to as an extrinsic reality or essence (kunh min rabbih). The reason for which humans could accept the bestowal of being, however, is that they have a receptivity (qabiliyyah) to or patiency (infi`al) with regard to being, a receptivity that constitutes their intrinsic essence (kunh min nafsih). It is implied that ordinary human consciousness tends to reside in the intrinsic essence, and that special efforts must be made to break through to the extrinsic essence, which is that “self,” knowledge of which is equivalent to knowledge of one’s Lord.
As I have argued, the human spirit is 'open' or 'receptive' to the Infinite, even though human nature is a created and thus finite essence.
For knowledge of illumination would entail knowledge of the illuminator, and whoever has known an attribute has known the possessor of that attribute. He discusses at some length another metaphor for this sort of knowledge of the divine, encouraging the reader to consider a flame viewed in a mirror. Here the form of the flame is like extrinsic being, whereas its apparition in the mirror is like intrinsic or passive being.
Oooh ... here (it seems to me) he speaks of the very reason why I reject the Baha'i mirror analogy – or rather, our vocation is not to become a Mirror but to be the flame!
That is the start of the path ... but keep going, keep going! This is the 'true ground' of Eckhart, where all distinction ceases to exist ...
One cannot know essence of fire by means of its mirror-image, but one can attain some knowledge of the flame (its heat, for instance) by means of its actual form. In the same way, when perspicacious believers, the possessors of discernment, see their own extrinsic reality, their own divine light or endowed being, then they get a inkling of their Lord.
One begins one's spiritual evolution, of course, with a much fuller sense of one's intrinsic being than of one's extrinsic being. The former, which is nothing more than one's receptivity to the divine ontological light, is characterized by attributes and subjective consciousness, which form a cloud of glory that obscures one's God-given essence. How, then, may we attain a knowledge of the true self that would in turn lead to knowledge of our Lord? Shaykh Ahmad's answer might best be characterized as Shi`ite Zen. It is to strip away all ordinary consciousness. Just as, in Mu`tazilite theology, the scholastic stripped away (ta`til) the apparent attributes of God, ending only with the unadorned divine essence, so Shaykh Ahmad counsels a similar stripping away of apparent human attributes, as a means to self-realization."
And here – the mention of Shi'ite Zen – is the cross-over between Traditions – in that everything that Shaik Ahmad is talking of as intrinsic being is what the Buddhist describes as transient and ephemeral – and why Eckhart speaks of detachment as the prince of virtues.
According to Shaykh Ahmad, while the divine Essence is inaccessible to ordinary believers, all humans possess attributes that constitute a manifestation to them of God. Therefore, although an annihilation of the divide between the seeker and God is impossible, it is possible to demolish the barrier between these persons and the internal manifestation of God within them.
This distinction is akin, I think, to the Heyschast Dispute in the Byzantine Church in the 14th century.
Gregory Palamas of Thessaloniki (1296-1359) saw a distinction between the essence (ousia) and the energies (energeia) of God.
While God in his Essence is unknowable and indeterminable, the 'vision' of God can be attained when his Energy (Activity) is seen with the eyes as the Uncreated Light.
Eastern Orthodox theologians generally regard this distinction as real and not just a conceptual distinction.
Historically, Western Christian thought has tended to reject the essence-energies distinction as real in the case of God. If I have it right, the Western position is that God's esse (being)/ousia (essence), is there is God's actus (activity)/energeia. One could go on to argue that God is present where He is active ...
Likewise, the "oneness" that is seen in multiplicity cannot be the oneness of God, since that would imply an identity between dust and the Lord of Lords.
I don't understand why he says this – I'd have to look into his reasoning – how that unity is expressed in Sufi thought. Or what expression he has an issue with.
in creating human beings God endowed them with being (often symbolized by Light and Water)...
I wonder does the Sufi also speak of breath (cf Genesis 2:7 Hb neshamah)?
... which, since it is bestowed upon them from an external source, Shaykh Ahmad refers to as an extrinsic reality or essence (kunh min rabbih). The reason for which humans could accept the bestowal of being, however, is that they have a receptivity (qabiliyyah) to or patiency (infi`al) with regard to being, a receptivity that constitutes their intrinsic essence (kunh min nafsih). It is implied that ordinary human consciousness tends to reside in the intrinsic essence, and that special efforts must be made to break through to the extrinsic essence, which is that “self,” knowledge of which is equivalent to knowledge of one’s Lord.
As I have argued, the human spirit is 'open' or 'receptive' to the Infinite, even though human nature is a created and thus finite essence.
For knowledge of illumination would entail knowledge of the illuminator, and whoever has known an attribute has known the possessor of that attribute. He discusses at some length another metaphor for this sort of knowledge of the divine, encouraging the reader to consider a flame viewed in a mirror. Here the form of the flame is like extrinsic being, whereas its apparition in the mirror is like intrinsic or passive being.
Oooh ... here (it seems to me) he speaks of the very reason why I reject the Baha'i mirror analogy – or rather, our vocation is not to become a Mirror but to be the flame!
That is the start of the path ... but keep going, keep going! This is the 'true ground' of Eckhart, where all distinction ceases to exist ...
One cannot know essence of fire by means of its mirror-image, but one can attain some knowledge of the flame (its heat, for instance) by means of its actual form. In the same way, when perspicacious believers, the possessors of discernment, see their own extrinsic reality, their own divine light or endowed being, then they get a inkling of their Lord.
One begins one's spiritual evolution, of course, with a much fuller sense of one's intrinsic being than of one's extrinsic being. The former, which is nothing more than one's receptivity to the divine ontological light, is characterized by attributes and subjective consciousness, which form a cloud of glory that obscures one's God-given essence. How, then, may we attain a knowledge of the true self that would in turn lead to knowledge of our Lord? Shaykh Ahmad's answer might best be characterized as Shi`ite Zen. It is to strip away all ordinary consciousness. Just as, in Mu`tazilite theology, the scholastic stripped away (ta`til) the apparent attributes of God, ending only with the unadorned divine essence, so Shaykh Ahmad counsels a similar stripping away of apparent human attributes, as a means to self-realization."
And here – the mention of Shi'ite Zen – is the cross-over between Traditions – in that everything that Shaik Ahmad is talking of as intrinsic being is what the Buddhist describes as transient and ephemeral – and why Eckhart speaks of detachment as the prince of virtues.
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,325
- Reaction score
- 572
- Points
- 108
According to this discussion, Western Christian thought (which is largely championed by St. Augustine) unwittingly erased St. Paul's meaning when transferring his thought from Greek to Latin. I learned from the video above that Western Christianity's take on this leads us to eventually embrace predestination. Around the twenty-seven-minute mark he states God's will is eternally unchanging for Augustine - and that it is simply another name for the Divine Essence. "It is . . . sort of fixed fully from his [God's] own side without any interaction or response to what creatures do. This is where I think you can see the metaphysical roots behind Augustine's view of predestination . . . It is just God's will, God's activity, God's determination that is behind everything. That whole idea that we are cooperators with God through our own free choice, I think, is what's lost. And that has huge theological implications."
Interesting comparison between Augustinian thought (West) and Gregory of Nyssa's thought (East). It further elucidates why I really, really dislike Augustine. I was unimpressed with his Confessions.
Mmm .. an often misunderstood, and divisive topic.
I'll have to correct you there – certainly St Augustine was a considerable voice in the Western Christian Tradition, but that does not mean he is followed without question – indeed I think is influence is greater in the Reformed traditions (Luther and Calvin) than in the Roman Catholic – a point made in the debate.
In the essence-energy debate, under review here, St Thomas Aquinas is the far more influential, and the theology of Aquinas is of a greater influence in the Catholic theological development.
That again is the Reformed denominations, the RCC does not hold with predestination.
Indeed, but this does not apply to Catholicism.
The below is extracted from: Bradshaw and Hart on Divine Essence which I think is a useful adjunct to that particular debate. Basically, Bradshaw has a view, but it is his informed scholarly opinion. David Bentley Hart, no lesser a scholar or theologian, holds a different view, and I mention this only by way of saying that Dr Bradshaw doesn't necessarily speak for the entirety of the Eastern world.
Basically both are renown Orthodox theologians – but they square off in a recent book Orthodox Readings on Augustine, particularly on how Augustine perceives the divine essence. The debate hinges on these terms:
There is the identity thesis of divine simplicity. This means that God is his attributes in such a way that God and his attributes are interchangeable. This is a direct implication of Thomas Aquinas on the Trinity. To be fair, Augustine does not say this, but he does set the stage for it.
The East begins its Trinitarian reasoning with the Persons of the Trinity, then their operations/activities/energies, and finally we come to the essence of the Trinity. Following St Basil in the 4th century, we say that we do not pretend to know God’s essence, but we do know him by his operations/energies.
Professor Hart doesn’t like that... Hart regards the Essence/Energies Distinction (EED) as incoherent.
Hart’s and most of Western Christendom criticisms of the EED are fair. Easterners haven’t always done a good job in affirming both simplicity of the Godhead along with showing how the “energies” do not constitute a 4th term in the Trinity. Secondly, it does appear that St Gregory of Nyssa ... holds to a fairly strong doctrine of simplicity. I don’t think he holds to the Thomist view of Absolute Divine Simplicity though.
(In Bradshaw's) Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom ... Bradshaw takes Hart’s strongest argument on the divine essence – Hart uses Nyssa for this – and turns it on its head.
Hart says that for Nyssa, the Divine Names (e.g., that God is truth, goodness, beauty, justice, light) are names of the divine essence. If so, Nyssa is an Augustinian. Bradshaw responds that Nyssa is asserting, rather, these are names of the Divine energies: these are names of God as he is manifest in his activities. Proof? Just see pages 161-165 of Aristotle East and West! Okay, I’m sure the harder evidence is there, but for the sake of convenience to those of us who do not have said book, you couldn’t have quoted the actual Nyssa?
* If Bradshaw’s reading is correct, Nyssa is in line with St Basil and the Cappadocian Ordo: Persons –> Operations –> Essence.
* It does maintain a strong doctrine of simplicity. Eastern apologists need to do a better job of this. The tendency is to shy away from any doctrine of simplicity. Yet, if one does that then a lot of what St Athanasius says will be very embarrassing.
And I appreciate the interaction between the two men. Both clarified what St Augustine says and I now have a better understanding of St Augustine, which is always good.
+++
Basically both are renown Orthodox theologians – but they square off in a recent book Orthodox Readings on Augustine, particularly on how Augustine perceives the divine essence. The debate hinges on these terms:
There is the identity thesis of divine simplicity. This means that God is his attributes in such a way that God and his attributes are interchangeable. This is a direct implication of Thomas Aquinas on the Trinity. To be fair, Augustine does not say this, but he does set the stage for it.
The East begins its Trinitarian reasoning with the Persons of the Trinity, then their operations/activities/energies, and finally we come to the essence of the Trinity. Following St Basil in the 4th century, we say that we do not pretend to know God’s essence, but we do know him by his operations/energies.
Professor Hart doesn’t like that... Hart regards the Essence/Energies Distinction (EED) as incoherent.
Hart’s and most of Western Christendom criticisms of the EED are fair. Easterners haven’t always done a good job in affirming both simplicity of the Godhead along with showing how the “energies” do not constitute a 4th term in the Trinity. Secondly, it does appear that St Gregory of Nyssa ... holds to a fairly strong doctrine of simplicity. I don’t think he holds to the Thomist view of Absolute Divine Simplicity though.
(In Bradshaw's) Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom ... Bradshaw takes Hart’s strongest argument on the divine essence – Hart uses Nyssa for this – and turns it on its head.
Hart says that for Nyssa, the Divine Names (e.g., that God is truth, goodness, beauty, justice, light) are names of the divine essence. If so, Nyssa is an Augustinian. Bradshaw responds that Nyssa is asserting, rather, these are names of the Divine energies: these are names of God as he is manifest in his activities. Proof? Just see pages 161-165 of Aristotle East and West! Okay, I’m sure the harder evidence is there, but for the sake of convenience to those of us who do not have said book, you couldn’t have quoted the actual Nyssa?
* If Bradshaw’s reading is correct, Nyssa is in line with St Basil and the Cappadocian Ordo: Persons –> Operations –> Essence.
* It does maintain a strong doctrine of simplicity. Eastern apologists need to do a better job of this. The tendency is to shy away from any doctrine of simplicity. Yet, if one does that then a lot of what St Athanasius says will be very embarrassing.
And I appreciate the interaction between the two men. Both clarified what St Augustine says and I now have a better understanding of St Augustine, which is always good.
+++
There's a paragraph in an article Palamas, Aquinas and the Metaphysical Wordwebs of the Athenians which is a review of two books touching on the same issues, one Catholic and one Orthodox – the latter being Bradshaw's Aristotle East and West.
It would be disingenuous to highlight all the less-that laudatory comments regarding Dr Bradshaw's thesis, but I hope this does all parties justice:
His (Bradshaw's) scholarly analysis of the term ἐνέργεια from a historical point of view is praised by many scholars, one calling it a “tour de force.” The book earned Mr. Bradshaw The Journal of the History of Idea’s Morris D. Forkosch prize. But if the historical survey of ἐνέργεια was the first goal of the book, the vindication of the eastern tradition is the second. I could find only eight scholarly review of the book, and most of them said the same thing: “Generally, Bradshaw’s execution of his first goal is irenic and scholarly. The same cannot be said for the way he handles his second goal.” Scholars called Mr. Bradshaw’s handling of the eastern tradition vis-à-vis the west as “a shame,” which is “argumentative” and “polemical,” suffering from “prejudice,” and ultimately becomes “a typically ‘Eastern,’ or neo-Eastern, apotheosis of Palamite theology.” The reasons for this criticism will become apparent below.
Despite being a Catholic site, the review is balanced and fair ... for more detailed explanation of the above, go to the page and search 'Bradshaw', to save reading the whole article.
It would be disingenuous to highlight all the less-that laudatory comments regarding Dr Bradshaw's thesis, but I hope this does all parties justice:
His (Bradshaw's) scholarly analysis of the term ἐνέργεια from a historical point of view is praised by many scholars, one calling it a “tour de force.” The book earned Mr. Bradshaw The Journal of the History of Idea’s Morris D. Forkosch prize. But if the historical survey of ἐνέργεια was the first goal of the book, the vindication of the eastern tradition is the second. I could find only eight scholarly review of the book, and most of them said the same thing: “Generally, Bradshaw’s execution of his first goal is irenic and scholarly. The same cannot be said for the way he handles his second goal.” Scholars called Mr. Bradshaw’s handling of the eastern tradition vis-à-vis the west as “a shame,” which is “argumentative” and “polemical,” suffering from “prejudice,” and ultimately becomes “a typically ‘Eastern,’ or neo-Eastern, apotheosis of Palamite theology.” The reasons for this criticism will become apparent below.
Despite being a Catholic site, the review is balanced and fair ... for more detailed explanation of the above, go to the page and search 'Bradshaw', to save reading the whole article.
Last edited:
As an afterthought, on the above article, which I have yet to work through, I saw this:
Dr. Williams, for her part, devotes two large chapters of dense analysis to Palamas and Aquinas, which amounts to 68 pages for Aquinas and 55 for Palamas. Her analysis is intricately bound to the sources, and she presents a compelling case for deification in Aquinas. (emphasis mine)
As this thread is about Mysticism – Bradshaw, Hart and Williams – all agree that theosis (deification) – Divine Union – stands at the apex of the Christian Mystical Tradition.
Dr. Williams, for her part, devotes two large chapters of dense analysis to Palamas and Aquinas, which amounts to 68 pages for Aquinas and 55 for Palamas. Her analysis is intricately bound to the sources, and she presents a compelling case for deification in Aquinas. (emphasis mine)
As this thread is about Mysticism – Bradshaw, Hart and Williams – all agree that theosis (deification) – Divine Union – stands at the apex of the Christian Mystical Tradition.