I should make a new category for atheism
by Andrea Elizabeth
Just caught a rerun of this new-to-me series on consciousness on pbs this morning. I guess consciousness is a key issue in the debate on the origins of the universe. One thing Orthodoxy does is it makes you doubt more your own perceptions of things, making it easier to understand some of the atheist arguments. What I like about atheism is that it presents a humble view of what a person on their own can know about God. Yet I also believe in revelation that is available in the Church. And I believe that individuals outside the Church can experience God and his love. But even they still can’t say who God is in Trinity, nor even what to do next on their own.
To shift a bit, an emphasis on consciousness is discriminatory to me. What about unconscious people, where are they in this scheme? Or the mentally ill (of which all sinners are to some degree)? Not to mention plants and minerals, and animals, to some people’s minds. I was thinking yesterday that it would be wrong to plant a tree that you are going to neglect so that it dies. And what some do with rocks can be a misuse of God’s creation.
So if consciousness is not the end all be all of a limited existence – maybe it is in a limitless one – what do we do with it? Perhaps consciousness can be compared to the nous. Orthodoxy teaches that we are to train it on Christ through the Jesus Prayer. Thus we are to receive more revelation of ourselves, the universe, and God. To infinity and beyond, as it were. A Hindu was talking about this when I first caught today’s rerun (can’t find the specific episode, but the above links to lots of interesting topics. Listening to this one now.). I don’t know how much in common Hindu transcendence has with Orthodox teaching, but I think Orthodoxy doesn’t sound so gnostic. I don’t see how Hindu teachings of the consciousness of all atoms jives with their great void at the end of enlightenment.
What we know about God is far exceeded by what we do not know. In a brief summary:
Scriptures, theologians and many religious leaders tell us what the divine is by listing grandiose attributes. Most mystics worship personal aspects of the divine, but they also speak of what it is not. Many of them said that the divine essence is nothing, i.e. no thing, that it is immanent in all things, yet it is transcendent to everything. Mystics consider this seeming paradox to be a positive negation.
Avidya, non-knowledge in Sanskrit, is used in Buddhism for our “spiritual ignorance” of the true nature of Reality. Bila kaif, without knowing how in Arabic, is Islam’s term for “without comparison” to describe Allah. Ein Sof, without end in Hebrew, is the “infinite beyond description” in the Kabbalah. Neti, neti, not this, not this in Sanskrit, refers to “unreality of appearances” to define Brahman. In via negativa, the way of negation in Latin, God is “not open to observation or description.”
Mysticism emphasizes spiritual knowing, which is not rational and is independent of reason, logic or images. Da`at is Hebrew for “the secret sphere of knowledge on the cosmic tree.” Gnosis is Greek for the “intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths.” Jnana is Sanskrit for “knowledge of the way” to approach Brahman. Ma`rifa in Arabic is “knowledge of the inner truth.” Panna in Pali is “direct awareness”; perfect wisdom. These modes of suprarational knowing, perhaps described as complete intuitive insight, are not divine oneness; they are actualizing our inherent abilities to come closer to the goal.
(quoted from “the greatest achievement in life,” my free ebook on comparative mysticism)
Mr. Krumpos,
My question is: what do people who focus on the non-knowability of God think of those who do not want to let go of His Incarnational energies (instead of the western notion of attributes) and dogma? That they are stuck on a lower level that should be discarded? And I’m wondering if the Orthodox monk in Jerusalem you mention on your site addressed this.
Mystics do not focus on the non-knowability of God…they simply recognize limitations of the mind. Also they do not claim to be on a higher level that those who follow mainstream religion. Theirs is a different approach which seems correct for them.
The Greek Orthodox monk in Jerusalem had recently left Mount Athos, where he was a hermit for 10 years. He was trying to convey to me his personal henosis and theosis. The topics you mention were not discussed.
Andrea, you did not publish my reply to your question.
So sorry! I just happened to check my spam folder and there your replies were! So odd since you were previously approved.
Thanks for your response. I don’t know if it’s because I’m a black and white thinker, but I’ve always thought there was only one right answer to many religious questions, even mystical ones. I have historically changed my view on what some of those answers are, but that just means I can be correctably wrong. “Different approach” doesn’t compute with me, Probably because I believe a certain level of revelation is waiting to be found. And that advancement is always possible.
Andrea, as you know many people believe that revelation begins and ends with their scriptures. Most mystics feel that revelation is here and now.
The last chapter of my ebook is called “Be realistic.” Quoting the last two paragraphs: You might prefer that your established beliefs remain as they are. If so, then give up mysticism. Mystics had to revise their personal beliefs often during the quest. Mystical absorptions, as steps toward enlightenment, are usually momentary or, only rarely, for hours. The greatest achievement in life is when those experiences transform your being. They may be brief flashes of insight which highlight a spiritual life, but are a constant source of energy for divine living.
Being realistic requires facing the truth. Being in the Real is to know the True. It is the greatest degree of existence here and now.
You probably also know that Orthodoxy maintains its tradition of mystic revelation of which Scriptures are a part, but not the whole. There is a way to open oneself up to enlightenment and the energies of God while maintaining belief in what he has revealed about Himself in Christ and the Church. Both worlds! I like how you describe mystical experiences. We are told to be cautious of experiences as many can be deceitful, but union with the energies of God is still the ultimate goal.