Proceedings of the Conferences on the Dialogue between Science and Theology
DIA LOGO Volume 2 - Issue 2 - March 2016
The concepts of “transcendence” and “immanence” in Philosophy and Theology
www.dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO Proceedings of the annual Conferences on the Dialogue between Science and Theology
Journal of RCDST (Research Center on the Dialogue between Science & Theology), Ovidius University of Constanta, Romania
Journal indexed in the following international Databases:
and subject for evaluation and rating for other Databases
DIALOGO CONF 2016 TIPT - Supplement volume 2 - issue 2 : The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in Philosophy and Theology.
Organized by the RCDST - Romania in collaboration with other Institutions from Slovakia - Pakistan - Switzerland - Poland India - Egypt - Uganda - Jordan - Turkey Argentina - USA - Canada - Germany held on March 3, 2016 venue: “Ovidius” University of Constanta, Romania
www.dialogo-conf.com
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this volume do not necessarily represent those of the Dialogo Organizers and are attributable only to the authors of the papers. Publication Series: Description: ISSN (CD-ROM): ISSN (ONLINE): ISSN (PRINT): ISSN-L: Editors:
DIALOGO (Proceedings of the Conferences on the Dialogue between Science and Theology) 2392 – 9928 2393 – 1744 2457 – 9297 2392 – 9928 Fr. lecturer Cosmin Tudor CIOCAN, PhD (Romania) - In-Chief - and Ing. Stefan BADURAS, Ph.D. (Slovak Republic)
Series Publisher: RCDST (Research Center on the Dialogue between Science & Theology), from Ovidius Univesity of Constanta. Romania Volume2, Issue 2 Title: The concepts of “transcendence” and “immanence” in Philosophy and Theology. subtitle: ISBN: DOI: Published by: (DOI issuer) Pages: Printed on: Publishing date:
DIALOGO-CONF 2016 TIPT 978-80-554-1208-5 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2 EDIS - Publishing Institution of the University of Zilina Univerzitna 1, 01026 Zilina - Slovak Republic 182 100 copies 2016, March 31
Note on the issue: This is a Supplement Issue of the main conference held in November 2015.
*All published papers underwent blind peer review. *All published papers are in English language only. Each paper was assigned to 3 reviewers and went through two-level approval process. * The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not nec-
essarily represent the views of RCDST. Authors only hold responsability over their papers and content.
Open Access Online archive is available at: http://www.dialogo-conf.com/archive (proceedings will be available online one month after the publication release). In case of any questions, notes or complaints, please contact us at: info(at)dialogo-conf.com.
Warning: Copyright © 2014, RCDST (Research Center on the Dialogue between Science & Theology), Romania. All rights reserved. Reproduction or publication of this material, even partial, is allowed only with the editor’s permission. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws. Dialogo by RCDST is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License This is in an Open Access journal by which all articles are available on the internet to all users upon publication.
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2
- 4-
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2 : 2 (2015)
Proceedings of the Conferences on the Dialogue between Philosophy and Theology March 3, 2016
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
Conference Sponsors and Parteners
Ovidius University of Constanta (UOC/Romania) www.univ-ovidius.ro
University of the Punjab (Lahore) www.pu.edu.pk
The Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi (UAIC/Romania) www.uaic.ro
“Vasile Goldis” Western University of Arad (UVVG/Romania) www.uvvg.ro/
The Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Tech- Horizon Research Publishing, HRPUB - USA nology (ISCAST/Australia) http://www.hrpub.org/ www.iscast.org
Research and Science Today www.lsucb.ro/rst
Research Center on the Dialogue between Science & Theology www.rcdst.ro
www.The-Science.com (Slovakia)
Maritime University of Constanta “Mircea cel Batran” Naval (UMC/Romania) Academy (ANMB/Romania) www.cmu-edu.eu www.anmb.ro
Global Ethics (Geneva/Switzerland) www.globethics.net
Faculty of Educational Sciences (WNP) Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Poland www.pedagogika.umk.pl
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2
Action-research in Contemporary Culture and Education – Practice & Theory (ACCEPT/Poland) www.accept.umk.pl
- 5-
Centre for Research and social, psychological and pedagogical evaluation (CCEPPS/Romania) ccepps.univ-ovidius.ro
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2: 2 (2015)
Proceedings of the Conferences on the Dialogue between Philosophy and Theology March 3, 2016
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
Conference Sponsors and Parteners
Faculty of Theology in UOC, Romania teologie.univ-ovidius.ro/
Faculty of Orthodox Theology in UAIC, Romania www.teologie.uaic.ro
Faculty of Medicine in UOC, Romania www.medcon.ro
Faculty of Theology in UAB, Romania www.fto.ro
Faculty of Psychology and Sciences of Education in UAIC, Romania www.psih.uaic.ro
Faculty of Psychology and Sciences of Education in UOC, Romania pse.univ-ovidius.ro
Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering in UOC, Romania fcetp.univ-ovidius.ro
Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences in UAIC, Romania snsa.univ-ovidius.ro
Centre of Inter - Religious Research and Christian Psychopedagogy Alba Iulia - Saint Serge (CCIRPC)
Second Volume published by
EDIS Publishing Institution of the University of Zilina Univerzitna 1 01026 Zilina Slovak Republic
RCDST Research Center on the Dialogue between Science & Theology Ovidius University of Constanta Romania
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2
- 6-
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2: 2 (2015)
Proceedings of the Conferences on the Dialogue between Philosophy and Theology March 3, 2016
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
International Scientific Committee, Reviewers and Contributers of Dialogo Journal Christoph STUECKELBERGER Globethics.net Executive Director and Founder; Prof. PhD. (Switzerland)
Ahmed KYEYUNE Islamic University in Uganda
Maria Isabel Maldonado GARCIA Directorate External Linkages/Institute of Language University of the Punjab; Head of Spanish Dpt. / Assistant Professor (Pakistan)
Ahmed USMAN University of the Punjab (Pakistan)
Filip NALASKOWSKI
Mihai Valentin VLADIMIRESCU Faculty of Orthodox Theology, University of Craiova; Professor PhD. (Romania)
Faculty of Educational Sciences - Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun; Dr. (Poland)
Mohammad Ayaz AHMAD University of Tabuk; Assistant Professor PhD (Saudi Arabia)
Lucian TURCESCU Department of Theological Studies - Concordia University; Professor and Chair (Canada)
IPS Teodosie PETRESCU Archbichop of Tomis disctrict; Faculty of Orthodox Theology; “Ovidius” University of Constanta; Prof. PhD. (Romania)
Francesco FIORENTINO Dipartimento di Filosofia, Letteratura e Scienze Sociali; Universita degli Studi di Bari «Aldo Moro»; Researcher in Storia della Filosofia (Italy)
Edward Ioan MUNTEAN Faculty of Food Sciences and Technology - University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Cluj–Napoca; Assoc. Professor PhD. (Romania)
Dagna DEJNA NCU Faculty of Educational Sciences (Poland)
Altaf QADIR University of Peshawar (Pakistan)
Panagiotis STEFANIDES Emeritus Honoured Member of the Technical Chamber of Greece HELLENIC AEROSPACE IND. S.A. - Lead engineer; MSc Eur Ing (Greece)
Eugenia Simona ANTOFI “Dunarea de Jos” University (Romania)
Wade Clark ROOF J.F. Rowny Professor of Religion and Society; Emeritus and Research Professor Walter H. Capps Center for the Study of Ethics, Religion, and Public Life; Director Department of Religious Studies - University of California at Santa Barbara (United States of America) Cristiana OPREA European Physical Society; member Joint Institute for Nuclear Research - Frank Laboratory of Neutron Physics; Scientific Project Leader (Russia) Gheorghe ISTODOR Faculty of Orthodox Theology - “Ovidius” University of Constanta; Prof. PhD. (Romania) Nasili VAKA’UTA Trinity Methodist Theological College University of Auckland; Ranston Lecturer PhD. (New Zealand)
D. Liqaa RAFFEE Jordan UNiversity of Science and Technology (Jordan) George ENACHE Faculty of History, Philosophy and Theology „Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati; Associate professor PhD. (Romania) Ahed Jumah Mahmoud AL-KHATIB Faculty of Medicine - Department of Neuroscience University of Science and Technology; Researcher PhD (Jordan) Ioan-Gheorghe ROTARU ‘Timotheus’ Brethren Theological Institute of Bucharest (Romania) Akhtar Hussain SANDHU Department of History, University of the Punjab; Associate professor PhD. (Pakistan) Richard WOESLER European University press, PhD. (Germany)
Dilshad MAHABBAT University of Gujrat (Pakistan) Adrian NICULCEA Faculty of Orthodox Theology, “Ovidius” University of Constanta; Prof. PhD. (Romania) Tarnue Marwolo BONGOLEE Hope for the Future; Executive Director (Liberia)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2
Coli NDZABANDZABA Rhodes University (South Africa)
Riffat MUNAWAR University of the Punjab; Dr. PhD. (Pakistan) Hassan IMAM Aligarh University, PhD. (India) Ioan G. POP Emanuel University of Oradea; PhD. (Romania) Farzana BALOCH University of Sindh Associate professor PhD. (Pakistan)
- 7-
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2: 2 (2015)
Proceedings of the Conferences on the Dialogue between Philosophy and Theology March 3, 2016
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
International Scientific Committee, Reviewers and Contributers Petru BORDEI Faculty of Medicine - “Ovidius” University of Constanta; Prof. PhD. (Romania) Khalil AHMAD University of the Punjab; Prof. PhD. (Pakistan)
Fouzia SALEEM University of the Punjab, Dr. PhD. (Pakistan)
Maciej LASKOWSKI Politechnika Lubelska; Prof. PhD. (Poland)
Mihai CIUREA University of Craiova, PhD. (Romania)
Muhammad HAFEEZ University of the Punjab; Prof. PhD. (Pakistan)
Mohammad Ayaz Ahmad University of Tabuk, Assistant Professor PhD. (Saudi Arabia)
Muhammad Shahid HABIB International Islamic University; Lecturer Ph.D. (Pakistan)
Mirosaw Zientarski Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toru, PhD. (Poland)
Muhammad Zakria ZAKAR University of the Punjab; Prof. PhD. (Pakistan)
Manisha MATHUR G.N.Khalsa College; University of Mumbai; Assistant Professor (India)
R S Ajin GeoVin Solutions Pvt. Ltd.; PhD. (India)
Pratibha GRAMANN Saybrook University of San Francisco, California (United States of America)
Mustfeez Ahmad ALVI Lahore Leads University; Prof. PhD. (Pakistan)
Adrian GOREA Concordia University, Montreal (Canada)
Radu NICULESCU Ovidius University of Constanta; Assist.prof. PhD. (Romania)
Richard Alan MILLER
Navy Intel (Seal Corp. and then MRU); Dr. in Alternative Agriculture, Physics, and Metaphysics (United States of America)
Fermin De La FUENTE-CALVO De La Fuente Consulting (Corporative Intelligence) B.Sc. Physics and Professor PhD. (United States of America)
Maria CIOCAN “Mircea cel Batran” Naval Academy; teacher PhD. (Romania)
Kelli COLEMAN MOORE University of California at Santa Barbara (United States of America) Osman Murat DENIZ Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi; Associate Professor PhD. (Turkey) Daniel MUNTEANU The International Journal of Orthodox Theology (Canada) Dragos HUTULEAC Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava; Assistant Lecturer, PhD candidate (Romania) Shiva KHALILI Faculty of psychology and education - Tehran University; Associate Professor PhD. (Iran) Mihai HIMCINSKI Faculty of Orthodox Theology - „1 December 1918” University of Alba Iulia; Prof. PhD. (Romania) Richard Willem GIJSBERS The Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Technology - ISCAST (Australia) Flavius Cristian MARCAU Constantin Brancusi” University of Targu Jiu; Phd. Candidate (Romania)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2
Stanley KRIPPNER Association for Humanistic Psychology, the Parapsychological Association; President; Prof. PhD. (United States of America)
- 8-
Sorin Gabriel ANTON Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi; PhD. (Romania) Sultan MUBARIZ University of Gujrat; PhD. (Pakistan) Gheorghe PETRARU Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Iasi; Prof. PhD. (Romania) Rania Ahmed Abd El-Wahab Mohamed Plant Protection Research Institute; PhD. (Egypt) Rubeena ZAKAR University of the Punjab; Prof. PhD. (Pakistan) Mihai GIRTU The Research Center on the Dialogue between Science & Theology (RCDST); President Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering - “Ovidius” University of Constanta; Prof. PhD. (Romania) Cosmin Tudor CIOCAN The Research Center on the Dialogue between Science & Theology (RCDST); Executive Director Faculty of Orthodox Theology - “Ovidius” University of Constanta; Lecturer PhD. (Romania)
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2: 2 (2015)
Proceedings of the Conferences on the Dialogue between Philosophy and Theology March 3, 2016
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
Organizing Committee Cosmin Tudor CIOCAN - SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMME OFFICER RCDST Executive Director and Founder; Lect. ThD. Faculty of orthodox theology, “Ovidius” University of Constanta (Romania) Adrian NICULCEA Faculty of Orthodox Theology, “Ovidius” University of Constanta; Prof. PhD. (Romania)
RESPONSIBLES FOR SESSION 1. “TRANSCENDENCE” AND “IMMANENCE” IN THE ANCIENT GREEK PHILOSOPHY AND THE PATRISTIC THINKING Acad. Alexandru SURDU Romanian Academy; ; Professor PhD (Romania)
RESPONSIBLE FOR SESSION 2. THE NOTION OF “TRANSCENDENCE” IN PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY Acad. Gheorghe VLADUTESCU Faculty of Philosophy - Bucharest; Professor PhD (Romania)
RESPONSIBLES FOR SESSION 3. THE NOTION OF “IMMANENCE” IN PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY Teodosie PETRESCU Faculty of orthodox theology, “Ovidius” University of Constanta; Professor PhD (Romania) Stefan BADURA - RESPONSIBLE FOR I.T. Publishing Society of Zilina; Ing. PhD. (Slovakia)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2
- 9-
http://dialogo-conf.com
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Rosevelt
Welcome Address
INTRODUCTION On behalf of the Organizing Committee, we welcome you to the events of DIALOGO Conferences & Journal, an international endeavor targeting Conferences on the Dialogue between Science, Philosophy and Theology, jointly organized by “the Research Centre for Dialogue between Science and Theology” (RCDST) from “Ovidius” University of Constanta (Romania) along with all our partners from 31 academic institutions, faculties and research centers within 21 countries, made the conference truly international in scope. This time the topic was narrower, The concepts of “transcendence” and “immanence” in Philosophy and Theology (Dialogo 2016 TIPT), and it held in-person at “Ovidius” University of Constanta, Romania, at 3 March 2016, and presented to the public at our official website, www.dialogo-conf.com/archive. Reflecting on the position each of these domains, Philosophy and Theology, had in the past, we have considered that we need to reconnect from the last step. The Romanian Orthodox university theology long felt the need for extensive and in-depth dialogue with university philosophy. Friendships close and full of usefulness between theologians and philosophers there certainly has long been, but an organized dialogue on precise topics and in a long-term strategy of rapprochement between the two areas of reflection is precarious - at least for Romanian intellectuals - even if some meetings were held in this regard over time. Oral/Poster paper were presented into thematic areas by the conference programing committee. Parallel oral sessions have held in three conference halls. The closing cocktail is usually combined with the Official Award Ceremony. This is the time when every Lecturer officially receives a Certificate of Attendance given personally by one of the Scientific Chairmen of the conference. In contrast with the past Dialogo events - when we approached this interdisciplinary debates in virtual meetings - this time a very useful interaction was made due to the many requests we have received from former attendees and Dialogo visitors to make, at least once per year, a conference held in-person. Therefore, this year we start in a new approach our dialogue and we have decided to have two events/issues per year, keeping the main event [held until now annually on November online], to which we have added another event, in March, held in-person. We hope that, with our partners’ help, we can keep this kind of in-person events also annually from now on. A well-received improvement was regarded the endorsement of Dialogo Journal & Conferences accredited by several international Databases that indexed our Journal during 2015 as mentioned on the page of indexing. The success of the conference is due to the joint efforts of so many people. Therefore we would like to thank the two Romanian Academicians that took part in this event and presented their motivation for carry on this dialogue with other domains of human knowledge. We thank to all participants, philosophers, theologians, and not only them, that presented interesting and useful papers; unfortunately, for several reasons, we
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2
- 11 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
couldn’t gather all the presentation in this volume, for there are many not yet written or translated on time to be included in this Supplement of Dialogo Journal. We also recognize the merits of the Scientific Committee and the Reviewers for their valuable contribution. All accepted papers have been precisely reviewed. Furthermore, we are proud to announce that all these concerted efforts are international endorsed and till the moment of this volume Dialogo Journal of Proceedings received recognition in the following well-known Databases. Dialogo Journal is now indexed in Social Science Research Network (SSRN), The CiteFactor, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Advanced Science Index (ASI), Index Copernicus, The Philosopher’s Index, Religious and Theological Abstracts (R&TA), and the subject for indexing under evaluation in EBSCO, ATLA Religion Database, CEEOL, JSTOR, SCImago, Summon by ProQuest, Cabell’s, and Thomson Reuters. All these facts and many others move this event further, to be acknowledged and valuable for the Scientific Community. In conclusion, we all hope that these Proceedings will be fruitful for the current and future academia.
See you again for the DIALOGO 2016 new, exciting event! your host, lect. Ciocan Tudor Cosmin, PhD Executive Director of The Research Center on the Dialogue between Science & Theology (RCDST) „Ovidius” University Constanța / Romania Scientific Programme Officer of DIALOGO international conferences E-mail: office(at)dialogo-conf.com
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2
- 12 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2; 13 - 18 (2015)
In tern a t i on a l Con feren c e on
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy
Preface IPS Teodosie Petrescu, PhD Department of Theology Ovidius University of Constanta Constanța, Romania
Welcome1 to this important and interesting event which brings us all together, theologians and philosophers, those who believe and those who reason, all those who possess an aim in this life: i.e. The concepts of “transcendence” and “immanence” in Philosophy and Theology. There is no theologian that can deny the role of philosophy. That’s how the theological expression begun, through philosophical terms taken from the thinkers of that times, terms like those used by St. Paul himself. He said to romans, in regard to their philosophers, that ‘in God we live, we move and we are’ as philosophers said. In the same time he warned that philosophy is incomplete, and showed that peoples are preoccupied with thinking of God and, in fact, Plato and Aristotle, found God in a certain way through their reasoning for they found the rationality of the world. But this is the distinction between a philosopher and a theologian: the former use his rationality, he finds rationality in everything that surround him, and this way he is concerned also about his soul, for it is a part of everything. Lately we are in a robotized period and our thinking is limited to certain preoccupations, now more pragmatic and this lead us to a lack of feeling and compassion. 1 Speach given in the opening of the Conference. Transcript by Laura Caloean and translation by Ciocan Cosmin
Welcoming speech at the DIALOGO TIPT Conference Constanta, Romania March 3, 2016
- 13 -
The later search for God’s revelation in his search for the truth; revelation is above philosophy because it gives answer to all questions, mainly to those considering for salvation. In the biblical revelation we have a prototype both for transcendence and also for immanence. Related to who is God, in Psalm 77.13 we have this wondering: “What god is as great as our God?” In his appearance to Moses, God met him on a mountain surrounded with smog and clouds, “On the morning of the second day, there was thunder and lightning with a heavy cloud over the mountain, and a very loud blast from a ram’s horn” (Exodus 19:16). In the same time God demonstrates his immanence for He called Moses to Horeb and there He appeared in a pyre that was burning and not consumed (Exodus 3.3). There Moses received an unforgettable answer to his legitimate question, ‘What is his name?’ What should I tell them?” (Exodus 3.13). God answered Moses, “I Am Who I Am” The Lord God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Exodus 3.14-15). This is only one prove from revelation and also a foundation for this dialogue we build today here. I thank all of you who agreed to come and participate in this dialogue and I hope everybody will benefit from this event, in a way or another.
eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928 printISSN: 2457-9297, ISSN-L 2392-9928
DIALOGO March 2016
In te r n at io nal C o nfe re nc e on
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y
Preface Acad. Alexandru SURDU VicePresident of the Romanian Academy Bucharest, Romania alexandru.surdu@acad.ro Referring1 to the concept of transcendence and especially to its particular significance in relation with divinity, with God, it is not an easy approach to make, moreover from someone outside the field of religion, for this type of ‘talking’ about God was always proved to be wrong if not accompanied by praying. I hope I can prove the greatness of divinity as transcendent, namely the theological-philosophical significance of God, because theology is the talking about God, as father Dumitru Staniloae said, our Orthodox theology cannot be only talking or theorizing about God; he also said babble on God, unless it is lived with Him. This is the true theology of our rightful faith. But it is hard, especially during a conference, to live with divinity, still we have to talk about it. Although we, Christians, have the Gospels, through which the divinity himself is speaking, I do not need to make too many comments, but strive to understand and live in our own way what it says. When the Savior says: “I am the Life, the Truth and the Way” (John 14:6) seems that, in the beginning, Christianity was called the Path: did you heard about the Path? What is the path we should go? He hodos (Gr.: oδός, ον) is 1 Speach given in the opening of the Conference. Transcript by Laura Caloean and translation by Ciocan Cosmin
Welcoming speech at the DIALOGO TIPT Conference Constanta, Romania March 3, 2016
nothing but intensive life experience of Jesus Christ who is the truth of our lives, to the extent that we are Christians and to the extent that we theologize the sense of Dumitru Stăniloae. He was a disciple of Andrei Saguna and, reaching the Romanian Academy, he loved to talk with us, other Sagunas. To our questions about his detention situation, he talked about human connection with transcendence, with divinity as transcendence, or this link is precisely religion (Lat.: religo, -are). Can you connect with what is beyond you, trans meaning also above. It can be done, but extremely difficult, and anyway, you cannot do that if you do not follow the path, if you do not identify with the Life and the Truth of our righteous beliefs. Staniloae told us that while in detention he tried to practice hesychasm (Greek: ἡσυχασμός, hesychasmos, from ἡσυχία, hesychia, “stillness, rest, quiet, silence”), kept telling the prayer of hart, “Thou, Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, the sinner”. And he kept saying it when he was beaten, while he was running. Eventually he reached a kind of trance, in a way connected with the unseen divinity, so you do not feel pain. But he could not resist too much in that state, because he was thinking to the people at home, thinking of his suffering fellows and they all scrambled that connection, because this bond is
- 14 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
In tern a t i on a l Con feren c e on
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy something divine and usually a person is striving vain to connect God unless God wills, if he is not chosen by God, and unless God gives him the revelation, like St John in Revelation. In contemporary philosophy something special occurs. Although it has been struggled to separate from theology, in one way or another of all kind of theology, it came, one way or another, to go to transcendence on all its tracks. The fresh philosophy of Existentialism fails in transcendentalism. All the great existentialists believe that the real experience, true life is not here, here is an illusion, so we must pass beyond, try to get or deserve to be pulled there, for the Savior says somewhere “when I get to heaven I will draw you all to Myself” (John 12:32), and these words were liked so much by the philosopher Soren Kirkegaard that he wrote a whole book about it.... What we do, as philosophers, is to think speculative (Hegel). This word, speculative, comes from Lat. Speculum, that means mirror and it has a certain significance; what is speculative is reflecting itself. We know some examples from the history of philosophy and mythology, which lead us to the significance of this self-reflection, mirroring speculation and, in one way or another, there is an acoustic aspect of the mirror, the echo.
echo of the transcendence, of what is beyond us. Categorically speaking, transcendence and transcendentalism, which are beyond the existence, imply all these ontological super categories, Unum, Totum, Infinitum, Aeternitas, Absolutum. If you say EverythingTotum, Everything does not refer to something, Everything tells about himself, and more than that, when you say everything you say and One, because besides Everything there is nothing, so he is One, is the Eternity, is infinity or the Infinite, the Absolute, namely the divinity. But apart from these ontological super-categories who say about themselves, but they tell about themselves only through you, only mirroring in yourself, if it mirrors, if you have the skills to mirror what is beyond existence. It is also a Protoexistence, it is what it also was before anything was, is Existence, which will be after there will be nothing, and this is precisely divinity. It is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. So, transcendence means transcending the beginning of the world, and transcending beyond its end. But the most important significance of transcendence is Super-xistence, as Dionysius saying: super ousios, super ousia hyper...
Plato places the most beautiful of his myths in a cave, where people heard echoes, voices could be heard, but they were not the genuine ones, they were only their echoes, and, on cave walls, like a kind of cinema’s anticipation, ran shadows; shadows that moved and spoke: Hello, how are you? It was only a shadow, and there was not the original, for the original was between a light source and the wall, the screen. Perhaps Plato, who was a myth maker, said that it was the time for mythology. He reversed things and speculatively placed his vision in the cave; but in a cave could were heard the echoes of Delphi too when they found that deep crack and heard voices that were surely of the priest of Gaia, the northern Thracian deity, who asked: who is it? If you ask like that, the echo will answer in kind, but there the echoes said: you are - know thyself, mirrors yourself and reflects your mind and your soul, because through this you reflect, you’ll speculate about divinity itself, which is beyond you; transcending is a reflex, is a reflection, is an
http://dialogo-conf.com
- 15 -
Welcoming speech at the DIALOGO TIPT Conference Constanta, Romania March 3, 2016
DIALOGO March 2016
In te r n at io nal C o nfe re nc e on
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y
Preface Acad. Gheorghe VLADUTESCU Faculty of Philosophy Bucharest, Romania
It is always good that we are repeating this attempt to dialogue1. We still have some sequelae of a long period of closing in ourselves, but nevertheless we are beings that dialogue. A great philosopher and scientist of the twentieth century also in said that, in the most severe solitude, we still remain beings inclined towards dialogue. Even in the event of a total shipwrecked within a lonely island - if possible - then we still assume the other-ness. Let us remember the book that is always a best-seller, a novel for everyone, Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe, the hero manages to recognize the other as an existence and survive through dialogue. We are beings that we do not recognize ourselves until we recognize first on the other-ness. We are trying for a while to exercise such dialogue, but we still do not know how to do this, since we practice a kind of parallel monologues that still does not pass information from one to another, we do not know well the rules to the dialogue. I thought about two of these rules that are fundamental: 1) everyone has to assume the other as himself, and 2) that the parties in dialogue to acknowledge that the point is not to win on one side - this is only happening in polemic. The right dialogue is for parties to think 1 Speach given in the opening of the Conference. Transcript and translation by Ciocan Cosmin
Welcoming speech at the DIALOGO TIPT Conference Constanta, Romania March 3, 2016
of the truth as somewhere beyond them, as the possible third - after the structure of the Platonic dialogues that does not end with a resolution but each opens to a forward dialogue. Between philosophy and theology, a theme as this enables us to meet the most of our Spiritual Exercises. Correlative, transcendence and immanence, in contrast but in identity too, they are two terms only as a specification, but not in numbers, because Existence as appearance, as ontophany, remains in the content Being. If they would topologically be separated, the Being would not be one any longer, Undeterminable, boundless and untransformable, the existence can appear to be a transformation of it, which is an absurdity because, being boundless, there isn’t ‘a beyond of’. But the Existence (lat. existentia), because it has its basis into Being, it cannot break from it; if it was doing it, it would break from its whole, which means that the Being would split, and if not, what should be than the one that appears? Appearance, the establishment, cannot be understood either as a division or as transformation; it is neither partial - only on one side -, nor occasionally, being co-eternal and coexistent, though not always the same.
- 16 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
In tern a t i on a l Con feren c e on
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy Since the existences are not enough, being - as Parmenides said - την εμφάνισή σας, εμφανής, to your appearance, apparent. Emerging and spending, they make their whole to be uninterrupted changing, but it they would not perish, after the prime act of establishment - which is absurd – because they does appear, it means that they have their basis beyond them, so only freezing things could be always the same. Appearing, they come after, not in temporal order, and a spatial or temporal interval, between Being and Existence, would be unthinkable. The Existence is, from the fact that it comes through, sit on, lat. existens,-tis; coeternity and co-existence gives also eternal coinfinity, since Being, in its wholeness, is always founded as a theme. Always identical with itself, Being, being able only to be Existence, in its foundation; so one is transcendent, and the other is the immanent to the ‘in-it-self’. Thus ontologically and metaphysically, it is just one singular term numerically speaking, which makes transcendence to be the same as what it is and can only be, while immanence is a manifestation - compared with the light facing the sun (Plotinus).
immanence at once, and not transcendence in a convenient situation, and immanence in another. The former is boundless and indivisible, the existent Being, though – in a contradictory mode – it is not in individuals, transcendence, in that that it is and remains in itself, the Being is immanence for Existence, for the later can only be under its foundation. Identity and difference, both transcendence and immanence, from metaphysical perspective, in that that the Being is in herself, it is repeated vertically, from top to bottom, in a scale, from universals to the individuals. As the Being in relation with Existence, universals transcend the individuals, and at the same time remains immanent. Only the transcendence makes individuals be in the individuality of their specie, and by species in the genus, be immanent - so, how is it possible fr at least two individual to be alike? If in each individual should be its own universal, than universality would be canceled, but since there are only individuals, the judgment as predicative sentence would not be possible. Vertically saying that Socrates is a man, we put in identity individual and universal, attended by at least 2 entities.
Distinguish between Being and Existence, things there are, but facing the Being they are nothingness, for Being is one, by itself indeterminate, unlimited. By appearing things are not by themselves, but by virtue of what has always remain in identity with itself, and by that it is the ground for the perceptible existences, without knowing what they are and how they are. This is not the responsibility of ontology, just as the morphology, although involves the articulation of words, as part of the same whole, it does not apply to them; this is the object of syntax. Morphologically, the Forms are transcendent, and immanence is a problem for syntax. Analog what is, το ον, it is only in self, in order to legitimate the existences, for that from ontology point of view things are not. With only the science of dictionary we cannot speak a language. Keeping its identity in language, the forms enter the structures. Thus by transcending transcendence become immanent.
As appears to St. Paul and Dionysius, the angels, in a medieval metaphysical reading, could be assimilated with intermediate steps. Universals are intermediate steps between the Being alone, always the same and equal to itself, and Existence which born and perishes. The great, dramatic issue of Greek philosophy was to think how we can shift from what it is to what is determined, from One to multiple. One of the platonic dialogs, Parmenides, part 2, which sets the program of metaphysics, discusses the problem of transferring individual things into universals – without this dialog Metaphysics would be void of program. “Dialogo Parmenides’ is the Discourse on Method and the eternal program for Metaphysics.
Immanence, im- in, manes- to stay in, calls the fact of being of the in-self-ness. This being in, from, staying in, keeping in, etc. Metaphisically speaking, therefore Being is transcendence and
http://dialogo-conf.com
- 17 -
Welcoming speech at the DIALOGO TIPT Conference Constanta, Romania March 3, 2016
This page was intentionally left blank
Session 1 “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
This page was intentionally left blank
DIALOGO
2.2; 21 - 26 (2015)
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.1 Constanta, ROMANIA - 2016, March 3
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy
Immanence or Transcendence? A Mathematical View H Chris Ransford, PhD
Australia henri-chris.ransford@grenoble-inp.org
Abstract: This paper uses the tools of mathematical analysis to try and shed light on the age-old question of whether a monotheist God would be simultaneously present everywhere in the wider Universe, or whether It would rather usually keep to privileged locations within space-time. On the narrow basis of where the mathematics leads, it reaches an unexpected but definite conclusion. Keywords: Immanence, transcendence, omnipresence, monotheism, universe, metaverse, wave function of the universe I. INTRODUCTION
The issue of whether an existing God would be immanent (i.e., omnipresent and all-pervading) or transcendent (largely located away from the known physical universe) is as old as monotheism itself, although the question was not always fully recognized in these terms. In olden times, the implicit default assumption was often that of transcendence - i.e., that God was present in some other place, some Eden
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
- 21 -
out there, neither further specified nor understood. This unspoken assumption of transcendence gave rise to the observance of all kinds of hallowed places and mementos and relics which God was deemed to have somehow visited or indwelt at some point, as opposed to a much vaster ruck of more ordinary objects and places where God was not thought to ever bother with. Most likely, transcendence became the natural default assumption because monotheism arose well before the modern era of widespread cleanliness and hygiene, and nothing godlike could be easily surmised in the ordinary surrounding squalor of pre-modern times. Whether one assumes transcendence or immanence has a very direct bearing on what or who God can or cannot possibly be. Different people and cultures may hold very different notions of Godhood, and, so as to perhaps obviate conflict and also paper over areas of uncertainty, many spiritual traditions still frown upon or forbid outright delving into the question of who God could be. We will analyse herebelow the mathematical consequences of both
eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928 printISSN: 2457-9297, ISSN-L 2392-9928 ISBN 978-80-554-1208-5
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y transcendence and immanence, without assuming any prior hypothesis as to any other attributes or even the existence of God. Applying the tools of mathematical analysis leads, unsurprisingly, to a view that an immanent God would be far mightier than a transcendent God, and that transcendence would entail intractable contradictions in how modern theology sees the nature of reality. But the possibility of immanence raises other issues such as the puzzling presence of evil, and we will look at these issues below. II. TRANSCENDENCE
Because It would be absent from parts of the universe or multiverse (aka metaverse), a transcendent God would turn out to be unable to be all-knowing, and there are things that any simple person would be able to know that would necessarily remain forever beyond the ken of a transcendent God. A straightforward proof of this statement is given by a simple adaptation of Gödel’s theorem, as follows: 1- An all-knowing God would, by definition, be able to correctly answer any answerable question (bearing in mind that some questions, such as ‘how long is a piece of string’, are inherently unanswerable.) 2- You, a mere mortal, now write out the following sentence : “ God will not say that this sentence is true.” Call this sentence S. S can be equivalently rephrased as : “God will never say that S is true.” 3- Now ask God whether S is true or not. 4- If God says S is true, then S (“God will never say that S is true”) is actually false. Therefore God will never say that S is true. 5- If God says instead that S is false, it would immediately be in contradiction with Itself since this statement then means that
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
It says that It will say that S is true - not false as It just did. Therefore: God will never say that S is true, even though S is factually true and everybody knows it full well. A transcendent God will never be able to call or confirm this truth, a truth however which you and any other mere mortal know full well is true and are able to readily confirm is true. It’s not simply a matter of God knowing the answer but somehow deciding to keep the truth to Itself either. To appreciate this, ask God: ‘Do You know the answer?’ Whether God answers yes or no, we fall straight back into the above paradox: as far as a transcendent God is concerned, the question is equivalent to ‘how long is a piece of string’ : there is simply no answer. In other words, a mere mortal positively knows a clear-cut truth which God can never call. A transcendent God therefore does not really know everything that is knowable, and is thus not omniscient. Unless ......Unless God is within you as well, and knows the answer directly from inside you. In other words: unless God is immanent. It has been shown elsewhere [1] that absence of all-knowingness would lead straight to the loss of almightiness. A transcendent God would therefore be relegated to the status of a lesser God in a universe or metaverse. Nothing would in principle bar such a universe from containing other godheads, at various levels of power or knowledge, each one at home in some subset of the Universe. Another key consequence of transcendence is that God would then become an observable, in the mathematical physics meaning of the phrase, and that it would therefore become in principle possible to prove or disprove Its existence: in physics, a non-observable is something that cannot in principle be apprehended independently of
- 22 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.1
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy itself, because any attempt to observe and define that something, by measuring it or by apprehending it any otherwise, ends up inescapably involving itself, thus leading to a circular, invalid definition of that something. Time is a well-known such non-observable. If God is immanent - present everywhere then clearly It is a non-observable because any bid to apprehend It will directly involve Itself and become immediately circular. If God is transcendent however, then it becomes in principle possible to ascertain Its existence or otherwise from an objective, non-circular angle (although the proof itself may in fact be beyond reach - there exist problems in science for which we can definitely prove that a solution exists, but which we’ll never be able to figure out because the solution is of demonstrably intractable complexity.) In its barest terms, transcendence says that there are zones of godlessness within the Universe (or, if it exists, within the multiverse or metaverse, defined as encompassing any other possible universes of any possible dimensionalities.) Any zones of godlessness would inevitably evolve out of the continued knowledge of God. As has been analysed elsewhere [1], the ability for God to somehow go back and investigate and acquaint Itself with hitherto neglected or overlooked parts of any universe or metaverse would entail enormous baggage, as it would involve multiple timelines into the past, multiple realities and so on, in a way that is not totally impossible but which would be far heavier and immensely more contrived than just assuming that God was just omnipresent from the word go. Furthermore, and more to the point, if God is able to reach back in time and space to revisit any part of the metaverse, then we can hardly say that God is transcendent - it would be just a form of deferred immanence, not true transcendence. If we are to retain God’s full almightiness, compelling mathematical arguments show
http://dialogo-conf.com
that God cannot be simply transcendent [1], and a truly transcendent God would be a limited God. Some theologians are happy with the concept of a limited God [1] [2], but if we are to uphold the usual infinite attributes associated with Godhood, then God must be immanent, and Ockham’s razor leads to the conclusion that God must be straightforwardly immanent rather than ‘deferred immanent’. III. IMMANENCE
Let us now assume instead an immanent God. We have regained the quality of omnipresence, and thereby also allknowingness and almightiness [1]. But an immediately puzzling downside of immanence is that God appears to now be present not only in such objectionable places as, say, murder weapons, but also, for those religious traditions that allow for the presence of a demon or demons, within demons. How can God be present within, say, Lucifer if such exists? This cannot be answered without answering the fundamental question of just who God may be. One of the immediate consequences of assuming immanence is that, although God is then firmly a non-observable, there happens to be a straightforward mathematical definition of what or who God could be: God is now isomorphic to and indeed fully coincident with a certain mathematical object. To appreciate this, we need to step back and look at a bit of mathematical background. A. Wave Functions
In mathematical physics, everything carries with itself an associated mathematical signature, called its ‘wave function’. The definition and specification of what wave functions are is covered at length elsewhere [4][3][1], suffice it here
- 23 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y to say that a wave function is the evolving mathematical signature of a particle or of any collection of particles, such as an object, in space and time. This wave function implicitly embeds within itself everything that defines and makes up that object: it encompasses all the data that fully describe it as well as its evolving interactions with its environment, irrespective of dimensionality or any other attributes. The wave function of a very simple physical object such as a free electron can be easily calculated and expressed mathematically, however wave functions become quickly fiendishly complex for more elaborate objects, such as collections of particles, such as may make up big molecules, objects, solar systems and ultimately the universe itself. Since everything, up to the universe itself, is made up of particles, then everything from the simplest free electron all the way to up to the universe has an associated wave function. It so happens, then, that the definition of an immanent God is fully isomorphic to and indeed coincides exactly with the definition of the wave function of the universe (whether there would be a wave function of a multiverse or parts thereof B. Controversies
The concept of a wave function of the universe is controversial and not universally accepted, for two categories of reasons. Some gainsay its existence [3], on grounds that boil down to a wholesale rejection of non-separability, i.e. to an argument that a full separation between an observer and an observed must always be upheld if any observation or measure is to be objectively valid. We must disagree with that argument - the wave functions of ever more complex collections of things are structured hierarchically, and, if we zoom out from any level of observation to the next bigger picture up, we will see that apparently
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
separate wave functions at one level keep being subsumed, however remotely, within a broader, higher level one at the next level up. In technical terms, full decoherence never happens. Ultimately, this argument of denial reduces to a beforehand rejection of immanence, i.e. the wave function of the universe does not exist because it does not exist. Foregone conclusions of course do not work in an exploration of these very conclusions. There is also another, reasonable argument that says that since the actual mathematical expression of that wave function would be infinitely complex (as well as ultimately self-referential in a infinitely recurrent relationship), it would be unknowable, and hence can be ignored as a description of reality. In other words, since it is neither expressible nor testable, it does not belong to the realm of science but to metaphysics. Whereas we must agree with this latter statement, it does not bar us from this discussion: like an immanent God, the wave function of the universe is ultimately circular and unascertainable. Another objection sometimes heard is the question of how a mathematical equation or set of equations can describe something alive? Although this may seem counterintuitive, it is obvious that it can. To begin with, objects made of chemical compounds (such as amino acids) have associated wave functions, and we can undeniably observe live combinations of such compounds, even if alive at a rudimentary level. In essence, wave functions are inextricably attached to atoms and molecules and collections thereof, and some arrangements of molecules - such as yourself - are clearly alive. C. What Is Life?
From our narrow macroscopic perspective, we cannot even unequivocally say whether a simple virus qualifies or
- 24 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.1
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy not for the status of being alive, so we must look at the concept of ‘alive’ - of life itself. Clearly, most of us would agree that a mechanical robot is not alive in the conventional sense, but that a person is. We can argue, from a high level perspective, that the one determinant higher-level difference between the robot and us is a measure of free will - the robot is a mindless and conscienceless automaton whereas we have awareness, outwardly expressed in a measure of free will. (Some people argue that we have zero free will, in which case the whole discussion becomes moot - any God of a robotic, mindless universe would probably not be very interesting.) Crucially, if we have a measure of free will, then it means that whenever we make a decision, nothing in the physical universe is able to foretell nor, crucially, foreordain at any time prior to the decision being made what this decision will turn out to be: i.e., to exercise itself, free will has not been conditioned by anything that happened anywhere in the universe at any time, however short, prior to the instant when we make the decision. But we are made up of atoms! The Free Will theorem demonstrates that for free will to be able to exist at the level of our human decision-making, then it must already exist, albeit in an elementary form, all the way down to the atomic, and indeed to the elementary particle level (technically of course under a set of conditions, which do not modify the broad argument.) In other words, under a liberal but inescapable definition of life, the whole universe itself must be alive. Which fully gibes, of course, with the idea of an immanent God. It also meshes with our general higher-level observation of life: viruses may be alive (barely so), lower life forms such as amoebas are definitely alive, human cells such as brain neurons are alive - but they all are not remotely in the same league as full-fledged humans. We must recognize that life starts at an elementary
http://dialogo-conf.com
level, that there exist veritable ‘quanta’ of life, and what the Free Will theorem hints at is the fact that life quanta begin much deeper down than we thought - not even at the possibly-alive virus level, but at the particle level. Last but not least, there is a growing body of evidence that the whole universe and/or metaverse is, ultimately, nothing but a mathematical structure. Above and beyond Max Tegmark’s et al. views of an ultimately purely mathematical universe [5], matter itself has been shown to be, in Stephen Battersby’s famous words, ‘nothing but quantum fluctuations’ [6]. Other mathematicians, coming from different angles, have also forcefully argued in that direction [7]. D. Also Within Evil?
This leads straight to a possible explanation of how God might even be, ever so remotely, present within a demon if such exists. The first constituent part of a possible explanation involves the mind’s wave function. It has been argued elsewhere [8] that the multiple personality syndrome (aka dissociative identity disorder, see [9]) arises when a brain’s wave function splits into several sub-wave functions (a phenomenon also called partial decoherence), owing to some mind-shattering event. Bearing in mind Battersby’s observation that matter itself is made of nothingness, we are led to believe that if decoherence can happen ‘in the flesh’, then it should also be able to exist in a pure ‘disembodied’, wave function state, and it is not hard to find credible examples of exactly that happening. In [10], Alexandra David-Neel describes her ultimately successful attempt to create a ‘tulpa’ out of her own mind - an ethereal thought-form, created by her own mind power. After a few weeks of intensely focusing her mind on the attempt, she succeeded and began to see the thought-form (or ‘tulpa’) around the
- 25 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y camp. Soon, bearing witness to its external reality beyond the confines of Alexandra David-Neel’s mind, others began to see it too. And then, after a few weeks, the tulpa began to acquire a life of its own, to not heed David-Neel’s orders (in mathematical terms, it had begun to further decohere), and for some reason it soon seemed to evolve into a nasty, slightly evil thought-form. (David-Neel then spent weeks mind-concentrating hard to dissolve her tulpa back into nothingness, eventually succeeding.) There is of course the possibility that someone’s memoirs can be mendacious, a possibility which we shall however discount here, because other embedded anthropologists, such as Christian Rätsch and others, have reported similar or logically equivalent cases. The second part is the fact that even in a ideally godlike universe, a measure of evil is mathematically inevitable [1]. Putting these two constituents together opens up a possibility that some thoughtform may have been created at some point by whatever agency, then somehow it decohered. Within the extremely tall hierarchy of wave functions ultimately culminating in the wave function of the universe, both the thought-form creator and the subsequently decohered thought-form would still be, however remotely, linked, and full immanence would be upheld.
Infinity: What Irreducible Mathematics Says About Godhood’, forthcoming, 2016; [2] Harold Kushner, ‘When Bad Things Happen to Good People’, Schocken Books, 1981; [3] Alyssa Ney & David Z; Albert, ‘The Wave Function’, Oxford University Press, 2013; [4] Eugene Merzbacher, ‘Quantum Mechanics’, John Wiley & Leonard Schiff, ‘Quantum Mechanics’, McGraw-Hill, et al. [5] Max Tegmark, ‘Our Mathematical Universe’, Alfred A. Knopf, 2014; [6] Stephen Battersby, “It’s Confirmed: Matter is Merely Vacuum Fluctuations”, NewScientist, Nov. 2008; [7] Shing-Tung Yau, ‘The Shape of Inner Space’, Basic Books, 2010; [8] Same author, ‘The Far Horizons of Time’, de Gruyter, 2015; [9] Martha Stout, ‘The Myth of Sanity’ , Viking Penguin, 2001; [10] Alexandra David Neel, ‘Magic and Mystery in Tibet’, Dover Books, 1971.
CONCLUSION The case for an immanent God seems to be overwhelming. If It exists, God, like the lover protagonist in the old Beatles song, is here, there, and everywhere. It says something about who we are, what the universe might be and the role it may play in a much wider scheme of things. But that’s another tale. References [1]
Same author, ‘God and the Mathematics of
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
- 26 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2; 27-33 (2015)
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.2 Constanta, ROMANIA - 2016, March 3
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy
Transcendence and Immanence of the Trinity in Barth and Lossky Arvin M. Gouw, PhD
Science, Religion & Culture Program Harvard University School of Divinity Cambridge, USA arvingouw@yahoo.com Abstract: At its best, Christian theology has strived to balance God’s transcendence and immanence both in the east and the west. In the spirit of ecumenism, here I compare and contrast the seemingly different Trinitarian doctrines of Barth and Lossky. Due to the interrelatedness of various doctrines in their theological systems, the comparisons will be made in three key areas that are pertinent to our discussion: epistemology, revelation, and soteriology. Each area yields important and stark differences, yet I argue that their differences arise partly due to their different respective traditions. But, despite their differences, they share great similarities in their attempt to maintain a Trinitarian God who is both transcendent and immanent. Thus, divine transcendence and immanence may prove to be good topics to pursue ecumenical dialogue in that can transcend the immanent doctrinal differences between the east and the west. Keywords: transcendence, immanence, trinity, Barth, Lossky, revelation, essence, energies
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
- 27 -
I. Preface
The goal of this paper is to compare and contrast how two great theologians of the east and west deal with the notions of transcendence and immanence. With any great theologian, it is impossible to extract a single concept from their theological paradigm without discussing the related doctrines. Key to understanding their notions of transcendence and immanence is their doctrine of the trinity. More specifically, I will discuss three aspects of Barth and Lossky’s doctrine of the trinity: epistemology, revelation, and soteriology. Second, I will contrast their differences and disagreements doctrine by doctrine. Finally, I will demonstrate what similarities underlie their theologies despite their disagreements and how they both construct their distinct Trinitarian understanding in explicating God’s transcendence and immanence.
eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928 printISSN: 2457-9297, ISSN-L 2392-9928 ISBN 978-80-554-1208-5
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y II. Karl Barth
The Trinitarian doctrine of Karl Barth begins with a fundamental epistemological suspicion of the analogia entis. Analogia entis, analogy of being, is an epistemological method where one seeks to know God by learning about His creation. The underlying assumption of analogia entis is that embedded in us and creation are the imago Dei and vestigium trinitatis, as Augustine puts it. Barth disagrees with this fundamental assumption and calls it an “invention of the Antichrist”[1]. He holds this opposition against it even though he retracted that strong statement [2]. Theologically, Barth argues that man is totally depraved such that an attempt to build a theology based on analogia entis would lead to an anthropological projection to theology. Instead of analogia entis, Barth proposes the use of analogia fidei, which includes also analogia relationis when it comes to the Trinity [3]. Barth, like Aquinas, argues that though proportionality between creature and Creator should not be drawn, there exists analogous relations. But this begs the question, how does one know of these relations? God the Father, the Revealer, reveals Himself in the Christ, the Revelation, and makes this Revealedness witnessed in us by the Spirit. Though such an understanding makes it seem that Barth has basically emphasized the threeness of God, Barth brings unity to the Trinity by saying that hypostasis should be understood as mode of being [3]. Thus, in the act of revealing Himself to us, God’s three modes of being interact within Himself and with us. Though this might sound Sabellian, Barth is basically trying to convey the classic Augustinian position that the three Persons proceed from one divine essence. Out of this divine essence, Christ is begotten and reveals Himself to us in the so-called economic trinity to show us the immanent trinity. Thus, Barth agrees with Rahner’s
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
grundaxiom that the immanent trinity is the economic trinity and the economic trinity is the immanent trinity [4]. Since the economic trinity is the immanent trinity, therefore it follows that we can understand the relations within the Godhead by looking at the economic trinity. Barth basically has shifted his theological exploration from the one God of revelation in his first volume of Church Dogmatics, to the three Persons in reconciliation in his third and fourth volumes of Church Dogmatics [5]. Barth, following Augustine, argues that the Spirit is the mutual bond of love between the Father and the Son. We know of this intratrinitarian love, because in the economic trinity, the Father and the Son have invited us for reconciliation by sending the Spirit to creation. The Spirit then unites not only the Father and the Son, but also creation and Creator. In summary, Barth begins from an epistemological skepticism of anthropology and natural philosophy. Since he does not think that man can transcend himself to know God, we can know God only through God’s self-revelation. This moves us to his doctrine of revelation, which happens to be Trinitarian, because Christ reveals the Father to us and the Spirit in us serves as witness to this revelation. This revelation happens in the act of God’s reconciliation. Because God’s self-revelation is absolute and real, the economic trinity that we see is indeed the immanent trinity. This grundaxiom makes it possible for Barth to reformulate his doctrine of the Trinity in light of the doctrine of reconciliation in the economic trinity. In the economic trinity, the Father and the Son send the Spirit to us to reconcile us back to the Son and the Father, therefore, the procession of the Spirit must come from the Father and the Son, filioque. In the revelation-based trinity, the unity of God lies in the essence of God. But in the reconciliation-based trinity, the unity of God lies in the bond of the Holy Spirit [6]. Either
- 28 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.2
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy way, the filioque is crucial in early and later Barth. 2.
Vladimir Lossky
Now, I would like to contrast Barth with Lossky. The logic of Lossky’s theology is similar to Barth’s. Lossky also begins with the fact that we cannot fully know God. However, this is not necessarily due to man’s depravity as proposed by Barth. Without the dramatic depravity of man’s nature, how does Lossky preserve God’s transcendence? Lossky simply elevates God’s transcendence. Lossky argues that the best of the cataphatic approaches to God still cannot yield an understanding of God. Following Gregory Palamas, Lossky promotes the apophatic approach of negative theology. Lossky does not think of negative theology as simply a deprivation of positive theology. Lossky argues that inherent in every negation is a positive knowledge. Interestingly, Lossky’s concern for the limits of our epistemology leaves us with God’s self-revelation as our only means to know God [7]. At this point, Lossky and Barth converge on God’s selfrevelation, although the reason for God’s transcendence is different for the two theologians. Lossky’s doctrine of revelation where God bridges over his transcendence to be immanent with us is intricately bound to his understanding of essence and energies. Following the patristics, Lossky argues that God is present in His energies but unknowable in His essence. However, this does not mean that God is not fully present in His energies. Through His energies that are made known to us by the Spirit, we may know the triune God as Love. Thus the energies are the attributes of God. Lossky collapses transcendence and immanence by maintaining that God is not part in essence and part in energies. God is whole in essence and whole in energies despite the inaccessibility of God’s essence. It is just that the essence is the mode of existence of God
http://dialogo-conf.com
where He is unknowable, while the energies are the mode of existence which allows us to partake in His Trinitarian life at the end of theosis [7]. Lossky interestingly enough bridges God’s transcendence and demonstrates His immanence through His redemptive acts which are knowable in His energies as communicated by the Holy Spirit [8]. Here we see a soteriological synthesis of the doctrine of the trinity with the doctrine of essence and energies to maintain a balance between transcendence and immanence. Through God’s salvific work, God has made Himself knowable in His energies as the three Persons that are in perichoresis. Thus, at this point like Barth, Lossky seeks to explain the triune God in light of soteriology. However, Lossky’s soteriology is quite unique and distinct from Barth’s. Lossky sees two fundamental kenotic acts of atonement: redemption and deification [8]. Redemption can be attributed as the kenotic act of Christ while deification can be attributed as the kenotic act of the Spirit. The two acts are different, but they are not unrelated. The act of emptying by the Son where He becomes man is the very act of redemption. The act of emptying by the Spirit whereby the Spirit hides His personhood behind the human person to reveal Christ in turn brings us to harmony with the divine nature. Last but not least, the Father’s kenotic act of revealing His essence in His energies lies behind the kenoses of the Son and the Spirit [9]. Despite the monarchy of the Father, Lossky is able to differentiate the procession of the Son from the Spirit by distinguishing the nature of the kenotic acts of the two Persons. Christ’ kenosis pertains at the level of the physis, while the Spirit’s kenosis is of the hypostasis. The interplay of these three kenoses allow the perichoretic movement to take place. Moreover, the three kenotic acts provide a way of the three Persons emptying from their transcendence into their respective immanent redemptive
- 29 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y acts. Lossky thus manages to explain transcendence and immanence not only using the classic distinction of essence and energies, but also through the concept of kenosis. In summary, Lossky begins with an epistemological issue where he prefers apophatic theology over cataphatic theology, because apophatic theology transcends affirmation and negation. Such apophatic epistemology naturally leads to his doctrine of revelation, because for him there is no way to know God other than through His revelation as God of love. Since God is Love, He has decided to be immanent in His energies. Though we will not be able to know the transcendent God fully in His essence, we can experience His immanence through His energies. This means Lossky cannot attribute the energies to any single Person. But on the other hand, Lossky refuses to follow the western tradition of locating the unity of the Godhead in an essence underlying the three persons, creating a tertium quid [10, 11]. To keep the energies and attributes of God appropriated to the being of God as a whole, while not resorting to Augustinian essence [12] being behind the three Persons, Lossky creatively connects his Trinitarian doctrine with soteriology by using the concept of kenosis. The distinction of the Persons comes when we see God’s act of atonement: redemption and deification. The Son redeems humanity by kenotically assuming human nature and hiding His divine nature. The Spirit deifies human nature by kenotically assuming the human person and hiding His divine person. Yet, these two processions are not identical and they are united in the Person of the Father who kenotically has decided to be present in His energies and hide His essence. Through kenosis, God is fully transcendent and immanent. Thus, the transcendent distinction of the Persons is made immanent to us from His kenotic acts of atonement [9].
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
III. Differences between Barth and
Lossky
Now, having discussed Barth and Lossky individually, I will point out their differences following the same flow of logic: epistemology, revelation, and soteriology. In epistemology, Barth argues that we cannot know God primarily because of human depravity. Lossky argues that we cannot know God primarily because God is ineffable. For Barth, the depravity in knowledge is overcome when Christ is revealed. For Lossky, the ineffability of God is not overcome just because God is present in His energies. This fundamental anthropological difference yields to different epistemologies and doctrines of revelation. Pertaining to the doctrine of revelation, for Barth, God has revealed Himself fully in Christ, such that the economic trinity and the immanent trinity are identical following Rahner’s grundaxiom [13]. But Lossky cannot accept this, because he maintains God’s transcendence not through economic/immanent trinity distinctions, but through essence and energies. Inherent in Lossky’s doctrines of energies and trinity, one can see three levels in the existence of the trinity [14]. First, the immanent trinity is within the Godhead in its divine essence. It is completely transcendent and unknowable to us. Second, as an outflowing of this divine essence, the trinity exists as three persons in the divine energies, yet the Father is the source of this outflowing, maintaining the monarchy of the Father. Third, the economic trinity immanently exists in relation to creatures through the divine energies, knowable to us [14]. Thus, through apophatic theology we can only progress from the economic trinity to the level of the energies, where we get a sense of the immanent trinity, but not its fullness in the divine essence. The third and second levels of existence are congruent, but the first level of existence is far beyond our reach,
- 30 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.2
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy even after deification. The immanence and transcendence are maintained in balance by the stratification of these three levels, instead of the two collapsed levels of Barth. Finally, when it comes to soteriology, the two disagree on the unity of the triune God. For Barth, the unity of God lies either in essence or in the Holy Spirit. Whether the unity is in the divine essence or the Holy Spirit, the unity of God basically lies in the filioque. The divine essence gives rise to the three persons, but returns to the divine essence only because the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son returns to the Father. Thus the unity of the Godhead lies in the filioque according to Barth [15]. Lossky strongly rejects this, because Lossky points out that the filioque phenomena can be seen only at the third level of existence of the Trinity, the economic trinity. Lossky then argues that one cannot say that this filioque procession is inherent in the immanent trinity. Instead, Lossky builds on the Chalcedonian distinction of hypostasis and physis and argues that the kenosis of the Son and the Spirit are dependent upon the kenosis of the Father. Thus there is a monarchy of the Father as the source of the begetting of the Son and procession of the Spirit. The unity of the triune God is in the Father, according to Lossky [7]. IV. Similarities between Barth and
Lossky
Nowhavinglookedattheirdisagreements, it is difficult to find similarities if we compare them doctrine by doctrine. Thus I will present their similarities by presenting some basic issues that they both share. I will argue that they are fundamentally trying to express some fundamental notions of the Trinity: the transcendence of the trinity, the immanence, real presence of the trinity, the distinction of the three Persons, and the unity of the Godhead.
http://dialogo-conf.com
First, the transcendence of the trinity is due to man’s depravity, according to Barth. This is the reason Barth condemns analogia entis for analogia fidei. Though Barth sees the economic and immanent as identical, Barth proceeds to say that the whole mystery of the immanent trinity is present in the economic trinity which is ineffable and transcendent to us due to our depravity. Thus, our finitude does not enable us to fully comprehend the immanent trinity, though it is fully revealed in the economic trinity. Lossky, on the other hand, safeguards God’s transcendence at the level of the divine essence. Lossky, following the eastern tradition [16, 17], maintains the level of energies to the existence of the Trinity to distance the economic trinity at the third level from the first level of divine essence. In other words, if Barth safeguards God’s transcendence by infinitely lowering man’s nature in depravity, Lossky safeguards God’s transcendence by infinitely raising the trinity via the levels of essence of energies [14]. Second, both Barth and Lossky want to argue that the economic trinity really is immanent in the history of our salvation. Barth argues that by saying the full immanent trinity is revealed in the economic trinity. Lossky affirms the reality of the economic trinity by saying that its mode of existence is completely knowable to us. Furthermore, God’s full presence is real in His energies [18]. Since the economic trinity acts on creation through the divine energies, the economic trinity embodies God’s real presence in creation. Third, having both agreed that the economic trinity is real, both argue that the three persons are distinct. Barth shows the distinction of the three persons through His analogia relationis [19]. God’s personhood is defined by its relations within the Godhead [20]. The Father would not be the Father without the Son and the Son would not be the Son without the Father. Neither the
- 31 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y Father nor the Son would be in a filial love if not for the Spirit. Similarly, the Revealer would not be the Revealer if not for the Revelation that which is made real in its Revealedness. The relationships between the Persons of the Trinity differentiate the persons within the Godhead. Lossky on the other hand, maintains the uniqueness of the Persons not by splitting up attributes to the different Persons (Lover, Beloved, Mutual Love or Mind, Love, Will), but by distinguishing their acts of kenosis. Their acts of kenosis are all unique, because they empty themselves of different things, whether it’s essence, nature or personhood [21]. Finally, Barth and Lossky both wants to maintain the unity of the triune God. Barth places the unity of the triune God in the filioque, while Lossky points at the monarchy of the Father as the unity of the three. The two processions proceed from the Father as the unbegotten, the source, the arche. In conclusion, their doctrine of the Trinity is different when viewed layer by layer from epistemology, revelation and soteriology. But their doctrine of the Trinity strives to safeguard divine transcendence and immanence: the ineffability of the trinity, the real presence of the trinity, the distinction of the three Persons, and the unity of the Godhead. References [1]
[2]
[3] [4]
Oh, P.S., Karl Barth’s trinitarian theology : a study in Karl Barth’s analogical use of the trinitarian relation. 2006, London; New York: T & T Clark. xvi, 180 p. Barth, K., The humanity of God. The Fontana library: theology & philosophy. 1967, London,: Collins. 95 p. Barth, K., Church dogmatics. 1936, Edinburgh,: T. & T. Clark. Grenz, S.J., Rediscovering the triune God : the Trinity in contemporary theology. 2004, Minneapolis: Fortress Press. xii, 289 p.
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
McCormack, B.L., Karl Barth’s critically realistic dialectical theology : its genesis and development, 1909-1936. 1995, New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford : Oxford University Press. xviii, 499 p. [6] Laats, A., Doctrines of the Trinity in Eastern and Western theologies : a study with special reference to K. Barth and V. Lossky. Studies in the intercultural history of Christianity. 1999, Frankfurt am Main ; New York: P. Lang. 171 p. [7] Lossky, V., In the image and likeness of God. 1975, London: Mowbrays. 232 p. [8] Lossky, V., Orthodox theology : an introduction. 1978, Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. 137 p. [9] Lossky, V., The mystical theology of the Eastern Church. 1976, Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. 252 p. [10] Letham, R., The Holy Trinity : in Scripture, history, theology, and worship. 2004, Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub. xv, 551 p. [11] Hunt, A., Trinity : nexus of the mysteries of Christian faith. Theology in global perspective. 2005, Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books. xvi, 254 p. [12] Hunt, A., The Trinity and the paschal mystery : a development in recent Catholic theology. New theology studies. 1997, Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press. ix, 198 p. [13] Barth, K., et al., A Karl Barth reader. 1986, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans Pub. Co. x, 117 p. [14] Reid, D., Energies of the spirit : trinitarian models in Eastern Orthodox and Western theology. American Academy of Religion academy series. 1997, Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press. xiv, 149 p. [15] Bromiley, G.W., An introduction to the theology of Karl Barth. 1979, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. xiv, 253 p. [16] Bobrinskoy, B., The mystery of the Trinity : trinitarian experience and vision in the biblical and patristic tradition. 1999, Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary. ix, 330 p. [17] Florovsky, G., Creation and redemption. Collected works of Georges Florovsky v 3. 1976, Belmont, Mass.: Nordland Pub. Co. 317 p. [5]
- 32 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.2
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy Lossky, V., The vision of God. The library of Orthodox theology,. 1964, London, Clayton, Wis.,: Faith Press; American Orthodox Press. 139 p. [19] White, T.J., The Analogy of being : invention of the Antichrist or the wisdom of God? 2011, Grand Rapids, Mich. ; Cambridge, U.K.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. xiv, 440 p. [20] Hunsinger, G., How to read Karl Barth : the shape of his theology. 1991, New York: Oxford University Press. x, 298 p. [21] Papanikolaou, A., Being with God : Trinity, apophaticism, and divine-human communion. 2006, Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press. x, 238 p. [18]
at Cancer InCytes Magazine, a magazine that discusses the healthcare needs of disadvantaged populations, especially victims of human trafficking and slavery. Dr. Gouw has been an active member of several professional societies: American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Academy of Religion, Society for Biblical Literature, and Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences.
Biography Arvin M. Gouw, Ph.D. is a Research Associate at Harvard University School of Divinity, Fellow at Stanford University, Visiting Scholar at University of California, Berkeley, and Adjunct Faculty at San Francisco State University. His main interest is in the intersection between science, theology, and ministry. He served as associate pastor in Harvest Fellowship of Churches during which he did his fellowship on science and theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. He received his Ph.D. in pathobiology from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, M.Phil in philosophy from University of Pennsylvania, M.A. in theology from St. Mary’s Seminary & University’s Ecumenical Institute of Theology, and B.A. & M.A. in neuroscience from UC Berkeley. Dr. Gouw serves as the director of the BeHEARD (Help Empower & Accelerate Research Discoveries) and RDTF (Rare Disease Task Force) divisions of Rare Genomics Institute where he leads crowdfunding efforts for rare disease personalized medicine research predominantly for children. Dr. Gouw is also the senior editor for biological sciences
http://dialogo-conf.com
- 33 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
DIALOGO
2.2; 34-44 (2015)
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.3 Constanta, ROMANIA - 2016, March 3
th e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy
The name „Immanuel” = „God with us”, a proof of God’s immanence, according to the religious vision of the American author Ellen G. White Assoc. Prof. Ioan-Gheorghe ROTARU, PhD
‘Timotheus’ Brethren Theological Institute of Bucharest President of Education Society for Romanian People (SPIPR) Bucharest, Romania. Dr_ionicarotaru@yahoo.com Abstract: The study shows the fact that The One who was named „Immanuel”, meaning „God with us”, namely Jesus Christ, through his life and through all His earthly activity, demonstrated the absolute immanence of God on earth. Because of this, when He was asked by apostle Philip to show them Almighty God, the Father, Jesus answered Philip that the one who had seen Him, had seen God, the Father. The divine immanence was manifested in the whole life and actions of Jesus. Keywords: „Immanuel”, immanence, symbol, significance, vision. I. INTRODUCTION
God’s immanence, analyzed in terms of significance of the name „Immanuel”, name given to Jesus Christ, meaning „God with us” or „God is with us” [1], was demonstrated in every aspect of Jesus’ life and actions on earth. He, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Son of Man, having a dual nature, a divine and a human one, was God incarnated, was The One who took human form. Through
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Him, people could have a vision on God’s character. The presence of Jesus Christ on earth signified the divine immanence. Saint apostle Paul, talking about God, who had said to shine the light out of darkness, enlightened people’s minds and hearts, motivating them to do everything they can, in order to shine the light of the knowledge of God’s glory: „For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” [2] This study, in terms of limited expression space, aims to highlight the vision of the American author E. G. White, regarding the significance of the name “Immanuel” especially in her book “The Desire of Ages”. This is the world’s best-selling book concerning the life of Jesus Christ. “Immanuel” was the proof of the divine immanence. The author makes interesting references on different aspects of the life and actions of Jesus Christ. The author’s
- 34 -
eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928 printISSN: 2457-9297, ISSN-L 2392-9928 ISBN 978-80-554-1208-5
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.3
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy extensive work cannot be summarized or analyzed in a few pages. Because of these considerations, we will present just a few aspects, considered by us as being significant. Through this, we invite you to analyze this book. II. The significance of the name
„Immanuel” – a proof of God’s immanence, according to the vision of the american author Ellen G.White As a divine prerogative, the name “Immanuel” highlights the divine attributes and character, especially in His relationship with man. In order to be perceived by man, God decides to send His Son, to take upon Himself the human nature. In these circumstances, the prophets foretold the great event of the Son incarnation. At the set time, named in the Scripture “the fullness of time” the incarnation took place, meaning that the Son took on a human form. He was named Jesus Christ, because this name refers to both: the divine nature (Christ) and the human nature (Jesus). His birth was considered a miracle and only God is capable of such a miracle. The Son took upon Himself the human nature, comparable with the human nature of the first man, Adam, a nature that did not fall into sin. Only under these conditions, the second Adam, namely Jesus Christ, could demonstrate the sinless character of God and the perfect obedience. The first Adam was created in the image and likeness of God. He could have lived forever in the state he had been created if he had obeyed and remained faithful to God Creator. The second Adam, true God and true Man, came into the world of earthlings to show the true character of God. Lucifer questioned the character of God. The divine character presented by Jesus, besides the revelation of the divine attributes, was a true proof of the immanence. The people could see and hear Him, they could touch Him, talk to Him,
http://dialogo-conf.com
and they could sit at the same table with Him and enjoy His touch, His words, and the miracles done in front of them. They could see Him ministering their needs. Man did not know God in this way, namely being so kind, so loving, full of understanding and patience, always there to help them, but also to rebuke human weaknesses. He seemed detached from another world. The American author Ellen G. White, showing the fact that Jesus Christ was incarnated and was named „Immanuel”, makes a demonstration regarding the significance of this name, namely the intercommunion of the transcendent God with people, live among them, which was in fact, the undeniable evidence of the immanence of God towards people: “His name shall be called Immanuel, ... God with us.” “The light of the knowledge of the glory of God” is seen “in the face of Jesus Christ.” From the days of eternity the Lord Jesus Christ was one with the Father; He was “the image of God,” the image of His greatness and majesty, “the outshining of His glory.” It was to manifest this glory that He came to our world. To this sin-darkened earth, He came to reveal the light of God’s love,—to be “God with us.” Therefore, it was prophesied of Him, “His name shall be called Immanuel.” By coming to dwell with us, Jesus was to reveal God both to men and to angels. He was the Word of God,—God’s thought made audible. In His prayer for His disciples He says, “I have declared unto them Thy name,”—“merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,”—“that the love wherewith Thou hast loved Me may be in them, and I in them.” But not alone for His earthborn children was this revelation given. Our little world is the lesson book of the universe. God’s wonderful purpose of grace, the mystery of redeeming love, is the theme into which “angels desire to look,” and it will be their study throughout endless ages. Both the redeemed and the unfallen beings
- 35 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y will find in the cross of Christ their science and their song. It will be seen that the glory shining in the face of Jesus is the glory of self-sacrificing love. In the light from Calvary it will be seen that the law of self-renouncing love is the law of life for earth and heaven; that the love which “seeketh not her own” has its source in the heart of God; and that in the meek and lowly One is manifested the character of Him who dwelleth in the light which no man can approach unto.” [3] The divine presence and His immanence could be seen first in the works of the Creation. He approached our world, a world that was in a chaotic state, “deserted and empty”, and started to create and to arrange it. In six days, He created a wonderful planet and in the middle of all the beauties that He had created, He put man, the first human couple- Adam and Eve. Only the first couple of people had known the divine immanence, because the Creator talked daily with them, “in the cool of the day”. We do not know how much did they talk with the Creator. They knew the immanent God, because He revealed Himself to them, but after they were banished from Eden, the situation changed. They and their children did not have the possibility and the freedom to see the immanent God anymore. However, God was with them, but He did not revealed directly to them, they could not see Him anymore. From then on, He used indirect ways to communicate with man. The divine immanence was no longer possible to see. All the created things were talking about a Creator, but He could not be seen. Referring to all that was created and that bore the mark of a Superior Intelligence, the American author E. G. White says that: the message about God was marked on every created thing. Therefore, it was the divine immanence written and placed on the created things. The author says that: “in the beginning, God was revealed in all the works of creation. It was Christ that spread the heavens, and laid the foundations of
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
the earth. It was His hand that hung the worlds in space, and fashioned the flowers of the field. “His strength setteth fast the mountains.” “The sea is His, and He made it.” Psalm 65:6; 95:5. It was He that filled the earth with beauty, and the air with song. And upon all things in earth, and air, and sky, He wrote the message of the Father’s love.” [4] The sin occurrence, namely man’s disobedience towards God the Creator, altered the divine image or imprint on the created things. But even with all these alterations, caused by the sin, the image of the Divinity can still be seen in the created things, according to the American author E.G. White: “Now sin has marred God’s perfect work, yet that handwriting remains. Even now all created things declare the glory of His excellence. There is nothing, save the selfish heart of man, that lives unto itself. No bird that cleaves the air, no animal that moves upon the ground, but ministers to some other life. There is no leaf of the forest, or lowly blade of grass, but has its ministry. Every tree and shrub and leaf pours forth that element of life without which neither man nor animal could live; and man and animal, in turn, minister to the life of tree and shrub and leaf. The flowers breathe fragrance and unfold their beauty in blessing to the world. The sun sheds its light to gladden a thousand worlds. The ocean, itself the source of all our springs and fountains, receives the streams from every land, but takes to give. The mists ascending from its bosom fall in showers to water the earth, that it may bring forth and bud.” [5] Even if, because of the human sin, the image of the divine immanence was increasingly difficult to be seen, the transcendental God had another plan. Through this plan, people could know Him in a special way. In order to be known, He needed a human nature, an immanence possible to be observed and known by people. The existent deities from various
- 36 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.3
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy cultures of the world had certain ways of representation and knowledge. They were represented by animals, birds, reptiles, religious objects etc. These deities could not descend among people, because they existed only in the minds of certain worshipers. Their immanence could not be known so they remained at a transcendental level. One of the most powerful statement regarding God’s closeness and knowledge towards people, meaning the way He made Himself known or His immanence, according to the American author E. G. White, is that God was revealed to us through Jesus. The human being could know better a person with a similar nature: “But turning from all lesser representations, we behold God in Jesus. Looking unto Jesus we see that it is the glory of our God to give. “I do nothing of Myself,” said Christ; “the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father.” “I seek not Mine own glory,” but the glory of Him that sent Me. John 8:28; 6:57; 8:50; 7:18. In these words is set forth the great principle which is the law of life for the universe. All things Christ received from God, but He took to give. So in the heavenly courts, in His ministry for all created beings: through the beloved Son, the Father’s life flows out to all; through the Son it returns, in praise and joyous service, a tide of love, to the great Source of all. And thus through Christ the circuit of beneficence is complete, representing the character of the great Giver, the law of life.” [6] Those scriptural passages describe the fact that in the person and actions of Jesus, from His birth to His crucifixion, the presence of God was manifested, and this manifestation of the divinity was the divine immanence among people: “Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those
http://dialogo-conf.com
things which I have heard of him. They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.” [7] “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.” [8] “He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.” [9] Because the fair and good character of God was questioned by Lucifer, someone was needed to set things right, by bringing them to their true reality, presenting correctly God’s character. The transcendent God was not known by people. In people’s minds the devil installed suspicion, which is why they needed a way to know the real and true knowledge of God. The best solution was to know God’s divine immanence through Jesus, with his dual nature: true God and true Man: “In heaven itself this law was broken. Sin originated in self-seeking. Lucifer, the covering cherub, desired to be first in heaven. He sought to gain control of heavenly beings, to draw them away from their Creator, and to win their homage to himself. Therefore he misrepresented God, attributing to Him the desire for selfexaltation. With his own evil characteristics he sought to invest the loving Creator. Thus he deceived angels. Thus he deceived men. He led them to doubt the word of God, and to distrust His goodness. Because God is a God of justice and terrible majesty, Satan caused them to look upon Him as severe and unforgiving. Thus he drew men to join him in rebellion against God, and the night of woe settled down upon the world. The earth was dark through misapprehension of God. That the gloomy shadows might be
- 37 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y lightened, that the world might be brought back to God, Satan’s deceptive power was to be broken. This could not be done by force. The exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God’s government; He desires only the service of love; and love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love awakened. To know God is to love Him; His character must be manifested in contrast to the character of Satan. This work only one Being in all the universe could do. Only He who knew the height and depth of the love of God could make it known. Upon the world’s dark night the Sun of Righteousness must rise, “with healing in His wings.” Malachi 4:2.” [10] The one who offered himself voluntarily to save humanity was Jesus. He was the One who came to present the real, perfect, good and fair character of God. None of the created beings could represent the divine character; they showed people the transcendent God. Ellen G. White presents this aspect through the following words: “Nearly two thousand years ago, a voice of mysterious import was heard in heaven, from the throne of God, “Lo, I come.” “Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body hast Thou prepared Me.... Lo, I come (in the volume of the Book it is written of Me,) to do Thy will, O God.” … In these words is announced the fulfillment of the purpose that had been hidden from eternal ages. Christ was about to visit our world, and to become incarnate. He says,“A body hast Thou prepared Me.” Had He appeared with the glory that was His with the Father before the world was, we could not have endured the light of His presence. That we might behold it and not be destroyed, the manifestation of His glory was shrouded. His divinity was veiled with humanity,—the invisible glory in the visible human form.” [11] Various symbols were used throughout time to describe Divinity. The symbols could not show the divine immanence in reality. They were just a shadow, a
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
symbolic reference to the One whom they represented. The man thought the divine transcendence was hidden from the human eyes, in order to make man able to endure it. The symbol has in itself the ability to be immanent, to be seen, observed, and touched. However, this immanence was meant to foreshadow, to symbolize something else, namely the One that had sent His attributes in a form, which is possible to be perceived. The American author E.G. White describes, in a special way, some of these aspects: “This great purpose had been shadowed forth in types and symbols. The burning bush, in which Christ appeared to Moses, revealed God. The symbol chosen for the representation of the Deity was a lowly shrub, that seemingly had no attractions. This enshrined the Infinite. The all-merciful God shrouded His glory in a most humble type, that Moses could look upon it and live. So in the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night, God communicated with Israel, revealing to men His will, and imparting to them His grace. God’s glory was subdued, and His majesty veiled, that the weak vision of finite men might behold it. So Christ was to come in “the body of our humiliation” (Philippians 3:21, R. V.), “in the likeness of men.” In the eyes of the world He possessed no beauty that they should desire Him; yet He was the incarnate God, the light of heaven and earth. His glory was veiled, His greatness and majesty were hidden, that He might draw near to sorrowful, tempted men.”[12] When the people of Israel were traveling, through the wilderness, from Egypt to Canaan, Moses received the divine commandment to build a tent [13], called “tabernacle”. It was called like that because it represented the connection between man and God. The Transcendent descended among people and made Himself known through the symbols placed there. In that tent there were many symbols, but also various ceremonies which were meant to
- 38 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.3
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy foreshadow and which were related all to God. Through the symbols, the man could know a few things about the divine immanence. The American author E.G. White writes the following things about the “tabernacle” or the “sanctuary”: “God commanded Moses for Israel, “Let them make Me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8), and He abode in the sanctuary, in the midst of His people. Through all their weary wandering in the desert, the symbol of His presence was with them. So Christ set up His tabernacle in the midst of our human encampment. He pitched His tent by the side of the tents of men, that He might dwell among us, and make us familiar with His divine character and life. “The Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the Only Begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.” John 1:14, R. V., margin. Since Jesus came to dwell with us, we know that God is acquainted with our trials, and sympathizes with our griefs. Every son and daughter of Adam may understand that our Creator is the friend of sinners. For in every doctrine of grace, every promise of joy, every deed of love, every divine attraction presented in the Saviour’s life on earth, we see “God with us.” ” [14] Even if Lucifer, who became the Devil, presents, the things related to God, in a distorted way, the true presentation about God was to be made by Jesus. In all His activity He dismantled all the untruths of Lucifer, offering a perfect parables in all respects. The American author captures this in a special way: “Satan represents God’s law of love as a law of selfishness. He declares that it is impossible for us to obey its precepts. The fall of our first parents, with all the woe that has resulted, he charges upon the Creator, leading men to look upon God as the author of sin, and suffering, and death. Jesus was to unveil this deception. As one of us He was to give an example of obedience. For this He took upon Himself our nature,
http://dialogo-conf.com
and passed through our experiences. “In all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren.” Hebrews 2:17. If we had to bear anything which Jesus did not endure, then upon this point Satan would represent the power of God as insufficient for us. Therefore Jesus was “in all points tempted like as we are.” Hebrews 4:15. He endured every trial to which we are subject. And He exercised in His own behalf no power that is not freely offered to us. As man, He met temptation, and overcame in the strength given Him from God. He says, “I delight to do Thy will, O My God: yea, Thy law is within My heart.” Psalm 40:8. As He went about doing good, and healing all who were afflicted by Satan, He made plain to men the character of God’s law and the nature of His service. His life testifies that it is possible for us also to obey the law of God.” [15] Jesus Christ, in His human nature, was God “revealed in flesh”, He was the transcendent who become immanent. He could not be known by people and he was ready to reveal Himself to them in a bearable way. However, the discovery of the transcendent was made only within the limits of human knowledge. This was a presentation of the divine immanence, and E.G. White writes: “By His humanity, Christ touched humanity; by His divinity, He lays hold upon the throne of God. As the Son of man, He gave us an example of obedience; as the Son of God, He gives us power to obey. It was Christ who from the bush on Mount Horeb spoke to Moses saying, “I AM THAT I AM.... Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”... This was the pledge of Israel’s deliverance. So when He came “in the likeness of men,” He declared Himself the I AM. The Child of Bethlehem, the meek and lowly Saviour, is God “manifest in the flesh.” 1 Timothy 3:16. And to us He says: “I AM the Good Shepherd.” “I AM the living Bread.” “I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” “All power is given unto Me in heaven and in
- 39 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y earth.”John 10:11; 6:51; 14:6; Matthew 28:18. I AM the assurance of every promise. I AM; be not afraid. “God with us” is the surety of our deliverance from sin, the assurance of our power to obey the law of heaven.” [16] Through human nature, Jesus Christ demonstrated a distinctive character, thus presenting the divine character. Therefore, the transcendent, with all its traits, could become known. But the human could only summarize what was revealed to him. The transcendent became immanent and the immanence amazed through its special character. It was full of love, sacrifice, humility and obedience. So as the High Priest didn`t served in celebration robes, wearing simple clothes, like any other ordinary priest, in the same way, the divine transcendental presented himself to people in a simple way, possible to be known. The divine transcendence was impossible to be known, while the divine immanence emphasized the possibility of the people to know the divine character. Therefore the American author writes about Him: “In stooping to take upon Himself humanity, Christ revealed a character the opposite of the character of Satan. But He stepped still lower in the path of humiliation. “Being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Philippians 2:8. As the high priest laid aside his gorgeous pontifical robes, and officiated in the white linen dress of the common priest, so Christ took the form of a servant, and offered sacrifice, Himself the priest, Himself the victim. “He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him. Isaiah 53:5.” [17] The character of the transcendent God was presented as being defined by love and sacrifice. Therefore, the divine transcendent was ready for the sacrifice, the sacrifice to bound himself to man for eternity. For this, the human nature of Jesus was offered as a sacrifice, in order to demonstrate love.
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
This could have been seen only through the divine immanence, which was lowered to the level of human knowledge. About this, the American author E. G. White writes: “By His life and His death, Christ has achieved even more than recovery from the ruin wrought through sin. It was Satan’s purpose to bring about an eternal separation between God and man; but in Christ we become more closely united to God than if we had never fallen. In taking our nature, the Saviour has bound Himself to humanity by a tie that is never to be broken. Through the eternal ages He is linked with us. “God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son.” John 3:16. He gave Him not only to bear our sins, and to die as our sacrifice; He gave Him to the fallen race. To assure us of His immutable counsel of peace, God gave His only-begotten Son to become one of the human family, forever to retain His human nature. This is the pledge that God will fulfill His word. “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder.” God has adopted human nature in the person of His Son, and has carried the same into the highest heaven. It is the “Son of man” who shares the throne of the universe. It is the “Son of man” whose name shall be called, “Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6. The I AM is the Daysman between God and humanity, laying His hand upon both. He who is “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners,” is not ashamed to call us brethren. Hebrews 7:26; 2:11. In Christ the family of earth and the family of heaven are bound together. Christ glorified is our brother. Heaven is enshrined in humanity, and humanity is enfolded in the bosom of Infinite Love. ” [18] On the occasion of Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan River, the divine immanence was revealed to everyone and the beings of the universe witnessed a revelation of the divinity. Therefore, E. G. White says: “Direct from the throne issue the beams of His
- 40 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.3
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy glory. The heavens are opened, and upon the Saviour’s head descends a dovelike form of purest light,--fit emblem of Him, the meek and lowly One.” [19] There, at the Jordan River it could be seen the heavenly discovery, the discovery of the transcendent. This was understood only by John the Baptist, but those present were also touched by the presence of the divinity, which meant that the transcendental became immanent for their understanding: “Of the vast throng at the Jordan, few except John discerned the heavenly vision. Yet the solemnity of the divine Presence rested upon the assembly. The people stood silently gazing upon Christ. His form was bathed in the light that ever surrounds the throne of God. His upturned face was glorified as they had never before seen the face of man. From the open heavens a voice was heard saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.””[20]. At Jordan River, the words of the trancendent God were heard by those who were present: “And the word that was spoken to Jesus at the Jordan, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” embraces humanity.” [21] Among the crowd, present for that occasion, there was also Nathanael. He looked at Jesus’s face, a face that had the image of simplicity, of hard work and poverty, and because of these he was disappointed, wondering himself whether Jesus could be the Messiah awaited by them. Therefore, Nathanael stood down to meditate on these things, when was found by Philip and asked to come to see Jesus. Jesus words, saying that He saw him there under the fig tree, before Philip had called him, impressed him. Nathanael wondered who would have known where he was hiding. Then he thought that Jesus really was Messiah, God incarnated and the divine immanence. The American author describes
http://dialogo-conf.com
as follows: “As Nathanael looked upon Jesus, he was disappointed. Could this man, who bore the marks of toil and poverty, be the Messiah? Yet Nathanael could not decide to reject Jesus, for the message of John had brought conviction to his heart. Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!” In surprise Nathanael exclaimed, “Whence knowest Thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.” It was enough. The divine Spirit that had borne witness to Nathanael in his solitary prayer under the fig tree now spoke to him in the words of Jesus. “[22] The divine plan, of making the transcendent known by people and therefore becoming immanent, was described by the American author, with the occasion of the miracle from Cana of Galilee:“The words, “Mine hour is not yet come,” point to the fact that every act of Christ’s life on earth was in fulfillment of the plan that had existed from the days of eternity. Before He came to earth, the plan lay out before Him, perfect in all its details. But as He walked among men, He was guided, step by step, by the Father’s will. He did not hesitate to act at the appointed time. With the same submission He waited until the time had come.”[23] By mingling among people, as one who desires the best for them, searching them in different places, even in their houses, Jesus wanted them to feel His divine presence and to get to know the divine transcendent. He also wanted to become immanent for them. The American author captures in her book these aspects, through the following words:“Jesus saw in every soul one to whom must be given the call to His kingdom. He reached the hearts of the people by going among them as one who desired their good. He sought them in the public streets, in private houses, on the
- 41 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y boats, in the synagogue, by the shores of the lake, and at the marriage feast. He met them at their daily vocations, and manifested an interest in their secular affairs. He carried His instruction into the household, bringing families in their own homes under the influence of His divine presence.”[24] One of the most obvious evidence of the divine immanence is described in the pages of the Holy Scripture, in the discussion between apostle Philip and Jesus. In the discussion Philip asked Jesus to show them God, the Father, meaning the possibility that the human beings to be able to know the divine transcendent. Jesus answered him, that the one who had seen Him, had seen in fact the Father. Man was eager to know the transcendent God and one of Jesus’ disciples uttered this desire. Jesus’ answer was a direct revealing of the fact that He was God incarnated; He was the divine transcendent that had become immanent among people. We present below the scriptural passage in question, which describes the question and the answer: “If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.” [25] The crowds, coming from various localities, gathered to hear Jesus. They were hungry and Jesus made the miracle of bread and fish multiplication. The transcendent that became immanent solved the situation of the five thousand hungry people. He multiplied five bread and two fish, in a miraculous way. The American
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
author writes: “In feeding the five thousand, Jesus lifts the veil from the world of nature, and reveals the power that is constantly exercised for our good.” [26] Jesus Christ, together with His apostles, in the boat trip on the Sea of Galilee ( Lake Galilee ), gripped by a sudden storm, appeals to the Great Teacher, who rebuked the sea and ceased the storm. The sailors were astonished by this fact, asking themselves who is This Man, who had the power to make the wind and the sea to obey him. The divine immanence was again observable in what Jesus did, it was observable in the ceasing of the storm and the sea. E. G. White describes the event as follows: “He lifts His hand, so often employed in deeds of mercy, and says to the angry sea, “Peace, be still.” The storm ceases. The billows sink to rest. The clouds roll away, and the stars shine forth. The boat rests upon a quiet sea. Then turning to His disciples, Jesus asks sorrowfully, “Why are ye fearful? have ye not yet faith?” Mark 4:40, R.V. A hush fell upon the disciples. Even Peter did not attempt to express the awe that filled his heart. The boats that had set out to accompany Jesus had been in the same peril with that of the disciples. Terror and despair had seized their occupants; but the command of Jesus brought quiet to the scene of tumult. The fury of the storm had driven the boats into close proximity, and all on board beheld the miracle. In the calm that followed, fear was forgotten. The people whispered among themselves, “What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?”[27] Jesus, in those moments of maximum fear for the disciples and for the sailors who were on the sea at that moment, was showing a feeling of complete serenity, without any fear. It was normal to be so. There was the One who had been beyond the situation. He was the transcendent, shrouded under a human being face. Only He could stay strong and calm in the middle of a storm, because He had the power to
- 42 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.3
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy be beyond any critical state. In such critical circumstances, only Someone equal to God could face the situation calmly. His state of calm and lack of fear was a proof of the divine immanence between them. They could see there the One who was beyond any human problem, beyond the nature and its power. Ellen G. White says: “When Jesus was awakened to meet the storm, He was in perfect peace. There was no trace of fear in word or look, for no fear was in His heart. But He rested not in the possession of almighty power. It was not as the “Master of earth and sea and sky” that He reposed in quiet. That power He had laid down, and He says, “I can of Mine own self do nothing.” John 5:30. He trusted in the Father’s might. It was in faith--faith in God’s love and care-that Jesus rested, and the power of that word which stilled the storm was the power of God.” [28] In front of the grave of Lazarus, Jesus Christ demonstrates again the fact that there is a relationship of equality between Him and God the Father, and the presence of Jesus there was again a proof of the divine immanence. There, the human reality showed that fact that man, in his limited sphere of potency, was incapable to solve the situation, which was beyond human possibilities, situation in which only the transcendent God, present among people through His immanence, and manifested in the Divine Being of the Son, showed his power: “But here Christ claims God as His Father, and with perfect confidence declares that He is the Son of God. In all that He did, Christ was co-operating with His Father. Ever He had been careful to make it evident that He did not work independently; it was by faith and prayer that He wrought His miracles. Christ desired all to know His relationship with His Father. “Father,” He said, “I thank Thee that Thou hast heard Me. And I knew that Thou hearest Me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that Thou hast sent
http://dialogo-conf.com
Me.” Here the disciples and the people were to be given the most convincing evidence in regard to the relationship existing between Christ and God. They were to be shown that Christ’s claim was not a deception.” [29] When Jesus asked Lazarus to come out of the grave, the deity, the divine immanence, has been felt in His being. Man is helpless in front of death, he cannot do anything. No man can bring back to live a dead person. Lazarus had been dead for several days; therefore, Jesus demonstrated the divine immanence, the power that brought Lazarus out of his grave, wrapped as he was. Those who were present stood near the immanent God, Who had shown His power. The reality met the divine immanence: “And when He thus had spoken, He cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.” His voice, clear and penetrating, pierces the ear of the dead. As He speaks, divinity flashes through humanity. In His face, which is lighted up by the glory of God, the people see the assurance of His power. Every eye is fastened on the entrance to the cave. Every ear is bent to catch the slightest sound. With intense and painful interest all wait for the test of Christ’s divinity, the evidence that is to substantiate His claim to be the Son of God, or to extinguish the hope forever.” [30] On the Mount of Transfiguration, the disciples saw the divinity on Jesus’ face. His face was shining, showing that it was something different, it was the face of a divine being, and it was the transcendent in front of man, shrouded under a form that was accessible to man. The author E.G. White thus describes this element of the divine immanence: “His prayer is heard. While He is bowed in lowliness upon the stony ground, suddenly the heavens open, the golden gates of the city of God are thrown wide, and holy radiance descends upon the mount, enshrouding the Saviour’s form. Divinity from within flashes through humanity, and meets the glory coming from
- 43 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y above. Arising from His prostrate position, Christ stands in godlike majesty. The soul agony is gone. His countenance now shines “as the sun,” and His garments are “white as the light.” ” [31] CONCLUSIONS In each of the situations presented it was demonstrated that the One who was given the name „Immanuel”, was truly „God with them.” „This revelation, is expressed through a name: Immanuel (Immanu-El = God is with us). In the biblical language, this closeness is described in the incarnation metaphors: „The bread coming from Heaven” and „The word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” Immanuel is not just a name or a tag, Immanuel means a new step in the world of knowledge, it means that God is so closer that man can see, hear and touch Him (1 John 1:1).” [32] The American author E.G. White, in her book, The Desire of Ages, presents her religious vision in a specific way. In her view Jesus Christ, the One who was named “Immanuel”, was truly God and Man in the same time. Every aspect of his earthly life was a demonstration of the fact that “Immanuel” was truly “God with them”. This means that God’s immanence was seen and perceived in all the aspects of Jesus Christ’s earthly life. REFERENCES [1]
[2]
[3]
[4] [5]
http://www.crestinortodox.ro/religie/numeleiisus-121237.html, accesed 22.02.2016, 16,41. The Holy Bible, King James Version, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, The New Testament, 2 Corinthians 4,6, p. 239. Ellen G.White, Viața lui Isus, [The Desire of Ages], Editura Viață și Sănătate, București, 2011, pp.10-11. Ibidem, p. 11. Ibidem.
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Ibidem, p. 12. The Holy Bible, King James Version, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, The New Testament, John 8, 25-29, p.135. [8] The Holy Bible, King James Version, The New Testament…, John 6, 57, p.131. [9] The Holy Bible, King James Version, Cambridge, The New Testament…, John 7, 18, p.132. [10] Ellen G.White, Viața lui Isus, [The Desire of Ages]..., pp. 12-13. [11] Ibidem, p. 14. [12] Ibidem. [13] The Holy Bible, King James Version,The Old Testament…, Exodus 25,8, p.102. [14] Ellen G.White, Viața lui Isus, [The Desire of Ages]..., pp. 14-15. [15] Ibidem, p. 15. [16] Ibidem, p. 16 [17] Ibidem. [18] Ibidem, pp. 16-17. [19] Ibidem, p. 93. [20] Ibidem. [21] Ibidem, p. 94. [22] Ibidem, p. 121. [23] Ibidem, p. 128. [24] Ibidem, p. 133. [25] The Holy Bible, King James Version, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, The New Testament, John 14, 7-11, p.145. [26] Ellen G.White, Viața lui Isus, [The Desire of Ages]..., p.347 [27] Ibidem, p.315. [28] Ibidem. [29] Ibidem, pp.507-508. [30] Ibidem, p. 508. [31] Ibidem, pp. 403-404 [32] Laurențiu Ionescu, “EmanuEL”, Semnele timpului, http://semneletimpului.ro/religie/ teologie/biblia/emanuel-teologie-si-revelatiein-onomastica-orientului-antic-apropiat.html [6] [7]
- 44 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2; 45-54 (2015)
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.4 Constanta, ROMANIA - 2016, March 3
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy
Transcendent and Immanent in the Orthodox Theology Fr. Prof. Gheorghe ISTODOR, PhD Faculty of Theology . “Ovidius” University Contanta - Romania pr_george_istodor@yahoo.com
Abstract: Transcendent and immanent are not valued in Orthodox Theology as simple concepts and they give sense to existence and salvation only in a personalist register. Their existence, both in the plan of eternity, as well as temporary, it is professed by the Church, and in the manner of which they relate and co-exist is the determining factor for understanding and preaching the truth of the hypostatic union in Jesus Christ, real God and real Man. The absolutization of the transcendence and immanence by philosophy or ideology is not accepted by Theology for the harmful consequences with regard to God, man and creation; also, the absolutization of these two lead to the elimination of Christ’s deity, reduced to a historical condition, marked either by the genius, or by the powerlessness and instinctuality. From missionary perspective, distortion of the relationship between transcendence and immanence leads to the intensification of the process of secularization, but also to antiChristian phenomena such as desacralization, indifference and unchristianizing. Keywords: transcendent, immanent, Christology, Christological heresy, hypostatic
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
- 45 -
union, secularization, profane, Christianization, indifference, deism, empiricism, scientific ideology I. Preliminaries Man, the coronation of God’s creation is called to an eternal dialogue with his Creator, encompassing both transcendent and immanent because God is equally transcendent and immanent. Thus, man, an immanent creature, carrying the “face” of God, and therefore with existential opening to transcendence, has the opportunity not just to dialog, but also to unite with the Tri-Personal Absolute, which is both transcendent and immanent. Human life becomes therefore a harmonious symbiosis of transcendent and immanent, the two become essential components of human, the presence of the transcendent discovers him and value him as “Anthropos”, and the presence of the immanent proves him as a real, living, dynamic, having a historical value person. Both realities outlines the man as having a gift and a call, a free gift that is in accordance with the divine call addressed
eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928 printISSN: 2457-9297, ISSN-L 2392-9928 ISBN 978-80-554-1208-5
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y to him. We clearly see that man has a purpose – and he is not a hazardous product - has a call that is fulfilled in highlighting the divine gift (cf. the parable of the thalers) and makes the man able to carry out a work with a soteriological value (in relation to God) and with philanthropic value (in relation to his fellow humans). Then, when the ratio between the transcendent and immanent is disrupted, anomalies that affect the man in his very being appear. II. The ratio between Transcendent and Immanent in the theological plan In theological perspective, both transcendent and immanent are valued as the incarnation of Jesus Christ, but the problems emerge when trying to define the relations between eternal Person of the Logos and the human nature assumed by Him in the act of incarnation. Thus, we have Christological heresies, and also the Gnostic ones that have greatly troubled the early Church. A. The Christological heresies - an expression of misunderstanding the reports between transcendent and immanent in Jesus Christ The Orthodox Christology, as defined in the fourth Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) through four major thesis, are in total opposition with the four major heresies of the time. The four heresies which we will refer briefly are: Aryanism, Apollinarism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism. Aries, the propagator of the heresy with the same name, lived in the fourth century and denied the divinity of Christ; he was condemned at the first Council of Nicaea (325 AD), conviction reaffirmed at the second Council of Constantinople (381 AD). Thus, Christ’s transcendence as God was denied, His immanence being valued as the first perfect creature of God-The Father. One of the fiercest opponents of Arius was Apollinaris of Laodicea (+390), which was also categorized as heretic towards the end of his life. He explicitly states the divinity of Christ, affirming the full transcendence
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
of Christ - God, but without accepting the fullness of His human nature. He argued that in Christ, the eternal Word has replaced the human soul or spirit, although he was claiming the Incarnation of the Word, but in a way that the incarnate was not completely human. His teaching were condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. If the fullness of deity and humanity of Christ were clearly defined at the end of fourth century AD, the way they come together and coexist, raises serious problems, in this regard two other heretics, Nestorius and Eutyches of Constantinople (c. 386-450; c. 380-456), have failed. The former was a theologian from Antioch in 428 A.D. Patriarch of Constantinople. He preached against the doctrine “Theotokos,” Mother of God, which is attributed to the Blessed Virgin Mary. He supported the Antiochian tradition about Word-Man, being concerned about the emphasis of transcendence, of immutability, and impassibility of eternal Logos, in order to keep the deity safe. He stressed the contrast between God the Word and Jesus the human being; only the latter was born of Mary, suffered and died for us. This new formulation for the early theology was intended to protect the transcendence and impassivity of the divine Word, even if the price paid was the abandoning of the doctrine of incarnation. Through the teaching “theotokos” he states that Jesus – the One who was born from Mary - is the incarnated Word, not just a human being in which the Word lived; He was The one who suffered, died and rose again. He did these things not as God in His divine nature, but as human. Therefore, Christ is not a conjunction or union between Jesus and the Word, but rather the divine Word who assumes a body animated with a living soul, the Word and his humanity are united to give rise to a single reality, a single hypostasis. This is why St. Cyril of Alexandria spoke of a “hypostatic union” of the Word with His body. St. Cyril believes that God - the Word is impassible, unable to experience pain. However, through the Incarnation, the Word suffered in the flesh as a human being,
- 46 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.4
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy paradoxically expressed by St. Cyril: “He suffered impassive.” Thus, the incarnation does not mean mutation, any reduction nor addition and does not involve a break in the divine life of the Word. A fourth heresy, of Eutychius, refers to the confusion of the natures in Christ, at the disappearance of the human being which is overwhelmed and annihilated by the divine nature of the Word, this being possible because of insufficient understanding of the orthodox doctrine on the “hypostatic union” [1]. We see, therefore, how the Christological heresies theologically distort the ratio of transcendence and immanence in Christ and the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Logos in the fullness of time (Galatians 4.4) of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary reconcile, harmonize and gives value to both transcendence and immanence for orthodox theology. B. The Gnostic heresies – a distortion of the reports between transcendence and immanence The “Christian” Gnosis represented the first big test indeed for the early Church, because its roots and its claims have risked compromising and distorting the whole process of teaching and the ecclesiastical life. Its claims to relate to a mysterious knowledge, esoteric, risks to transform Christianity into a “religion” of mysteries and to make those most affected by “vainglory” to be considered elite, chosen and even concrete manifestations of God’s. Gnosis’ roots were totally pagan at the origin, therefore we are dealing with an attempt of paganism to Christianity. Therefore we have an anti - Jewish Gnosis from the positions of “Christian” and an anti -Christian Gnosis represented by “New Prophecy” montanist, being an antithesis to the New Testament. The origins of anti - jewish gnosis is found in the Samaro -Syrian gnosis, represented by Simon Magul (opponent of the Apostle Paul) and Menander, with his disciples Saturnin and Basilide.
http://dialogo-conf.com
This gnosis paved the way for the appearance of the Marcionite gnosis who emphasized the antithesis of the Old and New Testament, between the Gospel and the Mosaic Law. The anti -Christian Gnosis was represented by Pentecostalism Samaritan exemplified by Simon from Gitton or Magus who in the same time is preparing the Pentecostalism montanism or the “New Prophecy” [2]. The Marcionite gnosis and Montanism drew a Monarchian reaction, the main problem being the Son of God and the relation with God the Father. The Montanist had as opponent primarily the monarchians, opponents of the divinity of the Logos, who were also anti-pnevmatic, meaning opponents of the Spirit because it was identified with Montanus or Priscilla. The patripasian monarchianism represented by Asian Praxeos just like Monarchianism hristopashit of Noetic of Smyrna, following gnosis footsteps dochet radicalized by the Marcionite it was rejecting the reality of the Incarnation of the Logos itself. Lastly, we have the Alexandrian Gnosis, synthesis, represented by Valentin, a disciple of Basilide, contemporary with Gnostic Cerdon and Marcion. If Basilide and Marcion were radically separating the celestial world “pleroma” of the flesh “kenoma” which was considered empty of any substance and bad in itself, Valentin is concerned about finding a connection point of a synthesis between them, reaching to carry out the explanatory principles of the world in three steps: 1) God the Father allocated first principle of all; 2) second being allocated to pleroma of the 30 aeons, Christ and the Holy Spirit being aeons to pleroma; 3) The third floor is allocated to the formless matter generated accidentally by the last eon [3]. Sophia harmonize transcendent and immanent in the pseudo-theology, the gnosis either defending strenuously God’s transcendence rejecting the divinity of the Son and the Spirit, but also the reality of the incarnation, either fails in an immanent sordid, identifying God, the Logos or the Spirit in the controversial person of the Gnostic, but in most cases we
- 47 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y are witnessing a harmful pseudo-religious syncretism of transcendence and immanence of the “Christian” gnosis. C. Catholicism and the trying to reconcile the transcendence and immanence in Christ The Roman Catholic Church has affirmed the full transcendence and immanence of Christ the Logos, the Christological dogma formulating in the ecumenical councils - 325, 381, 431, and 451 - with the contribution of the Christian East and West. But with time, the philosophical composition became increasingly larger and more influential, so that was reached proclaiming the “spirit of truth” of Albert the Great, Magister of Father of Scholastics, St. Thomas Aquinas. He argued that there is a truth up into the sky and other on Earth, a fact of theologians and another one of the philosophers. The theory of “spirit” had dramatic consequences in proclaiming the Pope as the vicar of Christ on Earth, viz. a replacement, which it has resulted in the dogma of Papal infallibility at the first Vatican Council (1869-1870), Pope being declared infallible when speaking “ex cathedra” = officially speaking. Saint Justin Popovici speaks about the connection between this event and the appearance to the theory of “death of God”, a causal explanation of why only 12 years away from the Vatican I appears Nietzsche’s theory. The idea is clear: God is “dead” as long as it has a substituted on Earth in the person of the Pope as the vicar of Christ, receiving divine attributes as well as the infallibility [4], this came to a conclusion in the occidental space between the transcendence of God and his absence of creation, confusion generated by rejection of the palamite teaching, about the uncreated energies, that could explain both transcendence and immanence of God, in an appropriate way with the foundation revealed. The absence of God from creation was completed in the Occidental conscience of Pope the Infallible. We see therefore that in Catholicism, the report between transcendent and immanent with regard to God is disrupted by the appearance of
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
new dogmas such as the papal infallibility. D. Protestantism - the absolutization of transcendence with regard to God In the protestant doctrine God becomes a concept, even if in the theology of the Protestantism representatives He is defined as a person. Thus, Karl Barth speaks of God as an independent person, his vision to God being directed against the so-called natural theology about God. Barth challenges its connection with God through revelation and identifies it with German pantheism practiced in the footsteps of Spinoza and Hegel theologians-philosophers like Schleiermacher, Ritschl or Rothe, who, each in their own way, were identifying the Deity with the universe, society or with each individual at their own religious experience. The natural theology appointed by Barth is the theology of God immersed in the immanence of our world, is the theology of human self-affirmation which is conceived as identical with God and having dominion over God. For Barth, the personal character of God is the ultimate guarantee against the “natural theology” by personal meaning a Trinitarian God. The alternative to “immanence” of God in nature for Barth is “divine transcendence” in the sense of keeping it “majestic” above the world and impenetrable of human reason. The church should in this regard to promote it as quite separate from the world, eliminating the risk of being confused with the world. The consequence of this vision is the location of God in a “transcendent” isolation so sharp, that it becomes useless to the world, the Church and man, although Barth rejects this reality by saying that God isolated in His absolute transcendence becomes only an idol. On the other hand, God created the world through Christ as distinct from Him who is in a relationship, understanding the “relational” character of God. Therefore, according to Barth, God is not “identical” to the world-as pantheistic affirms the natural theology - but not separated from the world- as mysticism suggests - but
- 48 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.4
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy in relation with the world even though this relation becomes necessary, limiting God. For Barth, this relationship with God and the world becomes both the condition of the existence of the world and to God; we are talking about a necessary relationship which is more obvious in Christology. Barth understands the mystery of Christ as the fundamental relationship between the transcendent God and the man Jesus as a symbol of man in general, of human finitude. The existence and knowledge of God depend on his correlative union with the world (cosmology) and with the “man” Jesus (Christology); in addition to these correlations with finitude - the man Jesus is aloof to God and belongs to finitude -God practically does not exist, the man Jesus becomes just the indestructible relationship model of God with man in general. In conclusion, for Barth, God is absolute, transcendent, man cannot know anything of what he is Himself, but only that he is in a relationship with man and the world. This slippage with regard to God, transcendence and immanence from the reformed Protestantism, led to a real craze within the so-called liberal Protestant theologians, which by the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the promoter of Christianity without religion, decrees a theology of the death of God, without any link to the teaching revealed of the Orthodox Church, where transcendence and immanence are completely eliminated with God himself [5]. The reform opened “Pandora’s box”, scattering Christianity in countless churches and denominations as it can be seen both in neo-Protestant movements, either with esoteric sects-occult Foundation, those of human potential or those of Oriental origin. The neo-religious phenomenon speaks of transcendent absolutization - speaking of God or the immanent. An example of absolutization within the transcendent is exemplified in the advent of groups in which “Time of Church” meaning the interval between the first and second coming of Christ takes place without Chris after his resurrection exalted by God the father. We are talking about a absolutization
http://dialogo-conf.com
of transcendence in Christ and a cancellation of Its immanence, the lack of a real Savior is real generating waterfall calculations with respect to the date in which the Savior will return at Parousia [6]. On the other hand, we have a absolutization of the immanence of the Savior within groupings “human potential”, but especially within the Oriental sects, that being pantheist or humanities, combines transcendent and immanent identifying them into a single reality claimed by the founder of each sect, as the reincarnation of Christ, be it the continuator of his “illumination” and man’s release from Samsara. According to Oriental new sects, “Maya”, we have the illusion of co-existence of transcendent and immanent about God [7]. At the same time we have a absolutization of the transcendent in the esoteric- occult sects because it updates the old heretical gnosis from the primary period of the Church as a modern neo - Gnosis which distorts the teaching about God and Christ [8]. E. The Orthodox perspective Orthodoxy has always valued both God’s transcendence and immanence, this fact being reflected in the triadology dogmatic formulations and Christological formulations. Formulating the teaching with foundation revealed on the Trinity showed the importance of both transcendence and immanence of God. The theological plan is as important as the iconomic properties of God as are valued equally with predicates. There is neither overrated nor immanence nor transcendence, the personal nature of God - the Holy Trinity gives value both to transcendence and its creation which can and must be transfigured. The Orthodox Christological dogma also valorizes in Christ both transcendence and immanence, Jesus being both eternal Logos and the one who assumes the history of salvation through the Incarnation. Through the combination of the four Caledonian adverbs - undivided, indivisible, unmixed, unchanged - it shows how the transcendence (deity) joins Hypostatic with immanence (humanity) in Jesus Christ the Lord,
- 49 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y without being favored at the expense of any other detriment, the incarnation being real not apparent and committed by Logos at the fullness of time (Galatians 4,4), after was committed to eternity in the “bosom” of the Holy Trinity. Again, to dispel the confusion that come within the scope of “non-Christian” religious, we make it clear that in the incarnation act, Jesus is not an “avatar” of the Divine Logos, but the Logos Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier human that descends to deify man. Therefore Orthodoxy is delimited by the extremes that absolutizes both immanence and transcendence of God. Orthodoxy reproaches scholars the unilateral emphasize of transcendence immutable to God, as a consequence granting a first logical divine being of Trinity persons, the divine being is and will remain incommunicable because of their rejection to the doctrine of uncreated divine energies, doctrine that allows Orthodox theology to affirm, concurrent with divine transcendence, an immanent presence in the world of God through his works. Likewise, Orthodoxy rejects any substitute against Christ and rejects, therefore, claims of people’s infallibility. Equally, Orthodoxy is delimited by the protestant vision which absolutizes transcendence of a God whose existence is conditional on relations with the world and man. Orthodoxy exceeds in the same time the ancient dualism spirit-matter, which made it impossible to accept the incarnation of the spirit and the transfiguration of matter by it. Thus, Christological orthodoxy rejects the Christological distinctions made in the West, between a Christ of glory and a “Jesus of history” but also the existence of a Christology of “up” and “down”. Lastly, Orthodoxy rejects the total immanence as it happens in the sectarian size of oriental inspiration and states that transcendence and immanence have equal value to God, man, world, by this avoiding both the banishment of God in a state of isolation “transcendent” and valuing the matter considered bad and impossible to be transfigured and to avoid ideology dangers naturalistmaterialist that proclaims the existence of the
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
only manifestation in the material dimension of creation, leading to pragmatism, desecration and de-Christianization. By teaching the uncreated Palamite energies, Orthodoxy not only reconciles transcendent with immanent but gives value to both aspects of existence. III. The Ratio between transcendent and immanent in philosophical plan Philosophy operates in her speech with the binomial transcendent- immanent, these realities having another meaning to theology. If ancient philosophy identify and value the transcendent at the root cause of things, being either One or Multiple, she remained largely dependent on immanent because most of the identified causes to explain the world were eminently materials. Modern philosophy relate differently to the transcendent and immanent, the relationship between them, therefore there is a tendency to absolutization of either transcendent or immanent or to deny both in the nihilistic perspective of “philosophy”. A. Deism - transcendent triumph in
philosophy
Appeared during the 17th century, flourishing in the next, he goes off in the XIXth century. It is a negative, destructive criticism of supernatural revelation, with its origins in the pagans’ writers like Celsus or Porphyrius. As a philosophical movement, Deism has borrowed the theist concept of God and interpreted in terms of a mechanistic model according to the new scientific insights of Bacon. The Deism theological antecedents are Pelagianism, Socinianism and Arianism. Deism emphasizes the perfect character of man, denies the Trinity in favor of the unity of God, and Christ’s divinity was reduced or negated altogether. The Deists believe that God is the Creator of all, a premium cause beyond the natural world, between Him and the world
- 50 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.4
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy existing an ontological separation [9]. The antisupernaturalism of the deism would be based on the nature of God which is unchanged on the uniformity of the laws of nature and on their inviolability. The Deist concept regarding God is unitarian, excludes the possibility of Revelation and incarnation. God’s indifference towards the world leads to limitation - as boundness and his power. But mostly it deprives God of love toward man and his own caring toward the entire creation. By emphasizing God’s unilateral transcendence, deism has contributed greatly to the emergence and the amplification of the phenomenon of secularisation, which leads to human desacralisation, to the process of autonomy in relation to God, that generates the dissolution of man’s religious universe and builds a sinful universe, where violence, murder or pornography lead to a perversion of the soul and body. To these are added the indifference, negativism and, human conviction to a “prison” purely immanent. Yet it ranks man outside of God and Orthodox Christian theology [10]. B. Empiricism - the triumph of immanence
in philosophy
After the absolutization of the transcendent in philosophy through deism, it was reached to the opposite extreme through empiricism as a counterweight to rationalism of XVII century. Empirical knowledge is focused on gaining knowledge in the process of practical activities of man. Francis Bacon believes that people should discover the phenomenal causes by inductive method, using analysis, comparison, observation and experiment. It is a philosophical doctrine of testing the experiment and found that human knowledge derived exclusively from the senses and experience. Empiricism rejects the in-born ideas of man and challenges any knowledge without reference to experience. He is considered the promoter of modern scientific method which absolutizes observation at the expense of intuition or faith. Names associated with empiricism include Thomas Hobbes [11], Francis Bacon, John Locke [12],
http://dialogo-conf.com
George Berkeley and David Hume. Among these, Hobbes and Locke connected with deism, and in the same time, Locke is considered in the same time a basic representative of sensualism. In this regard, he believes that outside of our senses there is no true knowledge. His fundamental idea is that there is nothing, if it wouldn’t have been existed first in our senses. Therefore he absolutizes the senses in the extent that he affirms that outside the senses, there is no knowledge and reason can only systematize knowledge. As for the connection with deism, Thomas Hobbes is the promoter of the deism materialism. Even though he declared himself as Christian, he was epicurist in his epistemology and materialist in his metaphysics. He argued the impossibility of conceiving God and affirmed that God’s name is invoked only to induce indirectly. Locke’s connection with deism refers to the affirmation of deist conception of God as opposed to the traditional Trinitarian doctrine. But he denied the deity of Christ, like most deists. Here is a clear example of disruption of the relationship between transcendent and immanent in philosophical plan, through empiricism are accessible only the total immanent with consequences to the theological level. C. Nietzsche or the denial of divine
transcendence and immanence
Through the empiricist “philosophies” it was prepared the way of philosophical negativity concerning God. Before Nietzsche, the romantics envisioned death of God, according to Călinescu Matei. He finds the disposal of the name of God among the “theologians”. Paul Tillich prefers to talk about “the Foundation of our existence” including the study materials in some theological schools of discipline “theothanalogy”, i.e. theology of ‘the death of God’. Before Nietzsche, L. Feurbach argued that the nature of God is nothing else but the expression of natural feeling. Further, he defines religion as actually being human self-consciousness of man, which, in an uninspiring way, calls it “God”.
- 51 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y Nietzsche as father of postmodernism exposes his theory of God’s death in the form of a parable in which a madman makes finding of death (murder) of God in his dialogue with the crowd, ironically and laughing affirms the death of God. Through this parable, Nietzsche expresses the characteristic of nihilism which was typical of those times, the killing of God would represent chaos in the human soul and transition to a new era, the postmodern one as a spiritual fatality. The road opened by the nietzschean nihilism is continued by the negativity of new generations that accuse the old lack of spirituality and authenticity and too much of conventional thinking. This way is continued by Emil Cioran, which would have raised through his skepticalnihilism ideas against sterility and superficiality at romanians and wants a culture of despair, experiencing the frantic, rampaging, which is carried out through barbarism. It would have been a “spiritual attitude” of negation that builds the “new man” free, harmonious, creative, inherent from the balance of spiritual force, along with the destruction of the “old man”, i.e. the one of Christian tradition. We see the link between Nietzsche’s Superman and the “new man” of the Christian deconstruction on negativistic foundation. Therefore we have an elimination sample of transcendent and immanence regarding God, looking from philosophical positions, if we consider atheism, nihilism, negativism or skepticism as philosophers [13]. IV. Transcendent and immanent in the
sphere of ideological sciences
With the Renaissance, radical changes were made within Western society on religion, God, church or man. The Christian God has been denied or sentenced to a marginalization “transcendent,” religion and the Church began to be assimilated to the private sphere, human’s subjectivity, not being recognized as worthy institutions to conduct public activities. The Church’s place and of the theologian in the
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
modern and postmodern society has been taken by the scholar, as the exponent of science that began to recant the tutelage of religiousness and Church’s, becoming increasingly more autonomous. The banishment of God in an illusory transcendence through deism means the succumb for the Western - as Nietzsche proclaimed and in the same time, made possible the triggering phenomenon of secularization. So it came to the implementation of “the old scientific paradigm” that will transform the science into ideology and will bring science into a cruel bondage of four ideologies: materialism, naturalism, atheism and scientism. This ‘scientific‘ paradigm will be a completely deterministic, materialistic and atheistic, and in her will reign hazard, the absurd and the non-sense. In the ideologized science, the religiousness has no longer value and God becomes an “unnecessary” hypothesis (La Place) [14], a “delusion” (Richard Dawkins) [15], being replaced by a “daimon” - omniscient spirit, purely theoretical that knew all future and all past. Dramatic changes are taking place at the level of life which is seen as an “improbable accident” and for man who appears only as an evolutionary process in the Darwinian sense, through the struggle for survival, through natural selection and by adapting to the environment. If religiosity is accepted in a society having as highlights the ideological sciences, is a pantheistic type, God is accepted more, as an impersonal “power” that does not intervene in the secularization of human life. Secularization means refusal of transcendence and proclaiming materialistic-naturalistic immanence as the only reality. This phenomenon has consequences, both in the relationship of man with God, as well as in Christological plan. Savior Jesus Christ is no longer the GodMan in which the transcendent (deity) and immanent (humanity) are joined in a real way, but is desecrated, devoid of his divinity, in the best case being presented as a man of genius, a moral model, in unfortunate cases being portrayed as a decadent, a slave of the passions
- 52 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.4
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy and of the bodily infirmities. Here’s where it was, from a position of majestic God transcendence, to absolute degrading immanence and unthinkable to theology. This dimension of ideological sciences remains a major challenge for the contemporary man, even if it is within the sciences of matters. In the last century, Carter formulated the principle anthropic which values man and appeal to the existence of a Creator of the universe.
Conclusion We analyzed the role of transcendence and immanence in human life, both in relation to God and in relationship with others or with the rest of its creation. We have also seen how important is the valuation of transcendence and immanence and also how harmful is the unilateral absolutization of an obvious reality that leads to offset the other. Lack of understanding and responsible management of the two realities, but also the reports between them leads - as we have demonstrated - to a fault, especially in a religiously plan of the contemporary man. Speaking missionary, the ratio between transcendent and immanent has a particular importance because it involves certain facets with major impact in the Christian life. The absolutization of transcendence has negative consequences at the level of teaching as well as the level of the missionary life of man. At dogmatic level, this absolutization removes the mystery of the Trinity, removes the deity of Christ The Lord and condemns God to an isolationism that actually cancels deity. The plan of missionary life, this absolutization leads to a devaluation of creation material in the Gnostic manner, but also to a lack of missionary dynamism which is replaced by a passive state of contemplation pseudo-religious, man being thus deprived in the status of being a partner in word and deed of the living God. On the other hand, the absolutization of the immanent has consequences in the same plans. Thus, at dogmatic level it opens the path
http://dialogo-conf.com
of a “theology” of death of God, but also of a nihilistic perspective about God, Which, if not denied, it is depersonalized, limited in His omnipotence and incapable of being involved in man’s life conducted in coordinating strictly materials. The deity of the Savior is eliminated as well, Jesus Christ being levied only on the size of humanity and Its historicity - in the happiest case as a man of genius and moral model. Missionary speaking, this absolutization has catastrophic effects because it condemns man to be an eminently pragmatic entity coming from hazard and going towards nonentity. It also exacerbates in man just the size of the action, the man becomes a social being, without the possibility of contemplation and of a spiritual life, through this man loses his “Anthropos” ontological characteristic. Furthermore, it is removed, the theological dimension of man, and its call is reduced only to the bodily and mental life of man. We clearly see that any form of absolutization of the two realities lead to a distortion of existence and life of God - the Holy Trinity and of man - the Crown of his creation. Equally, the distortion of the report between transcendent and immanent has major consequences in human’s life, both at the level of the relationship with God, as well as the relationship with his peers. In conclusion, the orthodox theology and the Church’s mission value transcendent and immanent and offers as a model of relationship between the two realities of Jesus Christ-true God and true Man.
References [1]
[2]
- 53 -
See in this regard Les Anathematismes de Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie, “Revue d’Histoire Ecclesiastiques”, 7, 1906; Anthony N.S. Lane, Cele douăsprezece anatematisme ale lui Chiril: un exerciţiu de moderaţie teologică (engl. The twelve anathemas of Cyril: a moderate theological exercise), în “Erezie şi Logos. Contribuţii româno-britanice la o teologie a postmodernităţii”, Bucureşti: Editura Anastasia, 1996, pp. 11-13; 16-18, 32-35. See Pr. Adrian Niculcea, Systematic History of Trinitarian dogma, Iaşi: Publishing Vasiliana ’98, 2010, pp. 31-64.
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y See J. Lebreton, Histoire de dogme de la Saint Trinité. De origins au concile de Nicée, p. 249-250; D. Barreile, Gnosticisme art in Dictionnaire de Teologié Catolique, vol. VI B, col. 1448; idem, Basilide, art cit., vol. II A, col. 473. [4] See Iustin Popovici, Omul şi DumnezeulOm, Sibiu: Publising Deisis, 1997. [5] See Pr. Prof. Dr. Adrian Niculcea, The concept of God, Protestantism and Orthodoxy and its consequences for sacramental life of the Church, being master practice, pp. 1-11. [6] See Pr. Prof. Dr. George Istodor, Christian sectarian phenomenon, Do Minor Publishing, Bucharest, 2009, pp. 106-117; Charles Wheeling, Armageddon now, “ Jamison “ 1992, p. 324; Ralph Larson, Apostasy is the Issue, vol. I- II, Cerrystone Press, 1993. [7] See Pr. Prof. Dr. George Istodor, The nonChristian sectarian phenomenon, Do Minor Publishing, Bucharest, 2009, pp. 35-145; Jean Vernette, XXI century will be mystical or it will not be at all, translated by Cristina Jinga, Zoe Petre foreword, afterword by Adrian Ene, Corinthian Publishing, Bucharest, 2003; Bryan Wilson, Les religieuses sects, Paris: Publisher Hachette, 1970. [8] J. Gordon Melton, The Encyclopedia of American Religions, vol. II, McGrath Publishing, Wilmington, 1978; Richard Bergeron, Le Cortège des Fous de Dieu. Un chrétienscrute les nouvelles religions, Montréal: Paulines et Apostolat des Editions, 1982, p. 187. [9] John Orr, English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits, Publisher, Literary Licensing, Whitefish, MT, 2011,p. 61; Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics, Wheaton: Romanian Missionary Publishing, 1995. [10] Archimandrite Assist. Dr. Teofil Tia, Photography values : christianisation contemporary Europe, the “ spirituality and consumerism in the united Europe “, Working Paper International Symposium organized by the Faculty of Theology of the University “ 1 December 1918 “ Alba Iulia 26 to 27 April 2004, Publisher reunification, Alba Iulia, 2004, p. 438-439; Pr. Univ. Dr. Valer Bel, in the context of Community Confessor in the world context secularized and globalized world, in the Symposium “ Modernism, [3]
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Postmodernism and Religion “. Constanta May 2005; Iasi: Publishing Vasiliana ‘98, 2005 pp. 33-40. [11] See Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, cap. 1 şi 3, Create Space Independent Victoria, BC, Canada: Publishing Platform, 2009. [12] John Locke, The Reasonableness of Christianity: As Delivered in the Scriptures, Intr., ed., comm. and annot. by G. W. Ewing, Regnery, Washington, D.C, 1998, 160. [13] Matei Matei Călinescu,, modernity, modernism and modernization : Modern variations on themes in “ Postmodernism philosophical openings “, Cluj -Napoca: Ed. Daria, 1995, p. 67. [14] See the dialogue between an atheist French astronomer Laplace and Napoleon III. [15] Richard Dawkins, God - a delusion, Bucharest: Curtea Veche Publishing House, 2013.
- 54 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2; 55-68 (2015)
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.5
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy
The relation between the immanence and transcendence within the religious imaginary in Sandu Tudor’s akathist-hymns The cross-motif in Sandu Tudor’s norm-poem Carmen CIORNEA
Theology Faculty, Doctoral School in Theology “Ovidius” University of Constanţa Romania carmenciornea@gmail.com
Abstract: The topic approached in this study involves identifying the particular notes of Father Daniil Sandu Tudor’s akathisthymns, mystic poet (neohymnologist) of the Romanian Orthodox Church - by applying a hermeneutic from the perspective of iconic anthropology structure. The fact that the akathist-hymns were accepted by the Romanian Orthodox Church in her liturgical corpus and are thus enjoying the status of sacredness, specific to the religious texts, requires the identification of appropriate ways of reception of this type of creation. Knowledge, in the neo hymnologist poet’s point of view, does not have much in common with the exercise of reason because the ultimate goal is deification. But even if you take the world transcendental teleological support, it can be achieved only by our way of thinking and behaving in the real world. The relation between immanence and transcendence clearly derives both from the dual nature of Jesus Christ and God’s Trinitarian status. The sacrificial and redemptive Cross - Christian symbol and sacral value - necessarily requires the supreme sacrifice model, which
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
is the one of the Savior’s crucifixion, model that intermediates the relation between heaven and earth, between immanence and transcendence. Keywords: Sandu Tudor, poetry, akathist, theology, immanence, transcendence, cross I. INTRODUCTION The paper “The relation between the immanence and transcendence within the religious imaginary in Sandu Tudor’s akathisthymns” approaches the religious work of the neohymnologist poet from the iconic anthropology structure viewpoint, from the coagulation of the religious images from his liturgical compositions in theological episteme. Structural analytical method applied in the present study was designed to identify core religious images but also to detect some significant ideas about the immanence and transcendence valences of certain mystical images from the poet-monk’s work. The Tudorian lyrics analysis requires that the research method which can be applied to his
- 55 -
eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928 printISSN: 2457-9297, ISSN-L 2392-9928 ISBN 978-80-554-1208-5
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y akatist-poems is the transcendental analyses because they directly approach the religiousness, the tendency being to examine not only the Christian element’s form, but especially its spirit. An effort to transpose, as much as possible, the divine mystery in some intelligible images, which involve a minimum of theological culture for decoding the message of the poem-prayer transpires in the mystic poet’s creation, by addressing tension between word and Word or Non-creation and Logos. Therefore, the hermeneutical interpretive approach, based on theological and literary skills, aims to delineate within the religious images the Christian symbols and sacralized values –the cross being an identity model for Christianity - and to follow the theme of human deification, intermediated by the dual nature of the Redeemer, symbol of the link between heaven and earth, which is a way of deciphering the relation between immanence and transcendence, of the interrelation between divine and human nature. The Christly revelation is an anthropological revelation and man’s religious conscience is meant to reveal the man’s Christly consciousness and that is why our analysis requires reference to the two types of structures of the religious poetry - ecstatic and enstatic. In Father Daniil Sandu Tudor’s vision, the role of art is to maintain the fire of piety and provide to man the resources and landmarks of liturgical gesturing: “hymn of silence” is the close proximity of the divine glory[1]. That is why I assumed that Tudor’s poetry can be considered as being related to the ecstatic intellect, therefore involving dogma’s paradox of the revelation of the mystery, notably through the abyssal, stylistic and metaphorical categories. For Sandu Tudor, the knowledge is accessible only to those who have exceeded the normal level of rough contemplation, left the tumult of the world and its clamor and, “without futile questions, without pride rebellion of contemplation, filled their eyes with the secret beauties of heaven and earth”[2]. The
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
process occurs after a philosophy of deification which takes the form of the ritual act, which is appropriate to the divine proximity, manifesto of true praise recognition, which is the Tabor uncreated light[3]. II. THE AKATHIST- SACERDOTAL ECCLESIASTIC POETRY The Akathist (Ακaθιστος, from Ακάθισmος , which means not to sit down) is a hymn, during which you cannot sit down, fact that comes from its name. The neohymnologist poet, Sandu Tudor, knew these theological concepts in detail and this is proved by the subtle explanations that he brought in the introduction to The Akathist of Our Father St. Allpious Demetrius The New, Oxherd in Basarabov - his first akathist-hymn - whose purpose was that of instructing the uninformed reader on how to read the text: “ The Akathist is a great spiritual song, typical to Eastern Christian piety. Of all the great solemnities of the royal courts of Constantinople, perhaps the biggest, most impressive was precisely this work of “the Akathist Hymn”, which in Greek means “holy song standing”. Even His Majesty the King could not deviate from the rule and sit down while the Akathist was said .” [4] The fixed form poem, specific to Byzantine cult, consists of a series of twelve praise songs and evening religious songs, its structure following, symbolically, the evolution of a time of the year, that is twelve steps, spiritual poetic cores in the natural evolution of the subject for the twelve months. The only deviation permitted in the architecture of the poem is the possibility to vary this cycle, and this process is used by Sandu Tudor, who extends the akathist to thirteen episodes, the last canto not developing the second part. The akathist has, however, as a whole, the roundness of a circle, being a hymnal prayer perpetuated indefinitely because the hymn is meant to be restarted from the beginning, in his natural uttering, at the end of its gradual cycle: “Hymn of wide amplitude or, better, a whole hymnology, the akathist is a fulfilled cycle of religious poetry. It is a kind
- 56 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.5
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy of total, gathered as an uninterrupted ring of songs, which returns to itself to run indefinitely, saying at a time: dramatic chants intertwined with other epic songs and bounded together with purely lyrical litanies.” [5] The word “condac” designates the old stick on which paper and parchment manuscripts used to be wrapped and in Greek it means “bedroom” and takes the form of a private prayer, “which is always a dramatic dialogue with God.[6]” The term “oikos” – meant “monument” in Greek and it was an occasion to summarize the life of the praised saint; it is a “bigger and more narrative hymnal piece, which ends with a litany, song of praise”[7]. If in the condac the structure is dramatically accomplished, as a consequence of intimate dialogue with God, who is the recipient of the prayer, for the oikos the organization is somehow narrative, it connotes a description of the glorious moments in the life of the one who is praised. The right interpretation of these concepts proves both theological culture and intellectual sophistication of the author: “Thus, after a <<condac>>- which in in Greek means bedroom - after this brief intimate prayer, which always is a dramatic dialogue with God, undisputedly follows one “oikos” - meaning monument - bigger and narrative hymnal piece, which ends with a litany, a song of praise. This rythm, of three kinds of hymns, increases twelve times over the whole life of the male or female saint whom the akathist is worshiped to, by putting it into an inseparable whole. The twelve interior cycles once finished, the akathist starts from the beginning and so forever, endlessly, to the state of ecstatic.”[8] Therefore, Sandu Tudor’s option for the akathist-hymn is a fully assumed one. Constantin Jinga, distinguished theologian, author of one of the most elaborate works, with ample comments on interwar cultural context, with a full and scientific analysis of the work of Father Daniil, from the historical-biblical and theological perspective - Hieroschemamonk Daniel Sandu Tudor, the man and his work - concluded the following: “Sandu Tudor aims to express religious feelings in his lyrics and cultivate in himself and
http://dialogo-conf.com
in his virtual reader sensitivity to the sacred, that is capable of initiating lyrical impetus to divinity, which he called piety. For this he chooses the form which seems most appropriate, Byzantine liturgical poem. The option is precisely motivated by the aesthetic conception specific to Byzantium, related to iconicity of the written text.”[9] In the opinion of the writer, man of robust theological scholarliness (otherwise proven by the complexity of the clarifications of great finesse and subtlety, addressed to the reader in Account of words, which precedes his first writing of this kind - The Akathist of Our Father St. Allpious Demetrius The New, Oxherd in Basarabov) only this text-norm, sitting as a bridge over centuries, can “sit for us as izvodite of deification.”[10] The poet-hymnologist’s explanations reveal that the akathist-hymn is not limited to being just an occasion to praise a saint but through it somebody “the divine is touched, the secret unic one, between the edges of a number of songs.”[11] Our health is purity, holiness of soul and body, in Jesus Christ God in His Holy Allmighty Church, as is clear from his writings: “Blessed are those who are hunger and thirsty of holiness, they shall be satisfied. To have hunger and thirst for God, Communion, confession, forgiveness. “[12] III. DOCTRINAL AND AESTETIC FEATURES OF THE AKATHIST-HYMN Once established that the Akathists written by Sandu Tudor (and other writings of sacred type) are an effective means to understand that real life is supported by the liturgical life, the confession and especially the communion of the Holy and Life Giving Mysteries of our Lord Jesus Christ we intend to analyze the ambivalence of the akathist-hymn, text that requires both a theological (doctrinal-catechetical) and a literary analysis. The Akathist-Hymns are revealed as a mystical poem, whose concept of great spiritual value is embodied in the phrase hymnal icon, concept used by Father Sandu Tudor in “Epilogue to the Akathist-Hymn of the Burning Stake” and
- 57 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y brought to the critic area by Constantin Jinga who stressed in particular, the value of these norm texts, of Byzantine tradition: “a cycle of prayers, which, by their content, teach us what pneumatic prayer is in itself. It is a cycle of hymnological icons that put us in the state of mystery knowledge awareness. “[13] The purpose of the Christian hymns as that of the prayer is establishing a connection, a communion between man and God: “No doubt, no one can receive and understand, let alone accept a joy, sipping this kind of poetry, if never been tormented by hunger and thirst of contemplation”[14]. Sandu Tudor’s reference was here at St. Gregory Palamas that teaches us to that high perfection stage is reached through contemplation: “mystic and hesychasts, he is the one that states theological foundation of contemplation ... through the seen light of the divine glory, the one which deifies us”.[15] Catharsis or apathy, understood as an exit from the labyrinth of contradictory thoughts, love acquisition by the peace that Jesus gave to his disciples, of the serenity lived as peace and joy of the soul, are all fruits of uninterrupted prayer, which washes the soul of all the concerns, making it “clean tablet” in which the Holy Spirit will imprint His signs. Sandu Tudor artistically ciphered this mystery ever since his training as a “Thought” school poet: “Over the evening mind, Thy seal / Clear unique and overwhelming, / It is above my head, guiding, / In blue -engagement of star logostar “.[16] St. Gregory Palamas emphasizes that “no knowledge of dogma without proper Christian life is useless. Only the spiritual wisdom that is one born of faith and mixed with love is redemptive. “[17] The hymn is an absolute and true song, which institutes history, where the poet becomes the voice of the Logos, the poetry assuming a transfiguring role.[18] Father Daniil Sandu Tudor is recognized as a Romanian descendant soul of the great Byzantine hymnologists, from the novel Melodus to John Damascene with all of the Studites School tradition.
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
The outburst in the light of these Hymns was announced and prepared by the volume of poems “Comornic” but also by the poems published in “Thinking”, periodical which highlights various images and symbols of Biblical and Byzantine origin. A long process for settling and metamorphosis is developed within the akathist-hymns, because Sandu Tudor’s poetry, already passed through successive incarnations, discovers in a mature way that the world should not be denied but transfigured. Sandu Tudor creates in literature a new model of hymn that is born from a certain conception of the purpose of the poet in the world, about art and faith - love - hope, especially the fusion under the fire of inspiration of the symbols of origins and very diverse lineages as time and space for expression concerns. Considering Sandu Tudor’s akathisthymns from this perspective we can see that the fundamental creation technique is the agglomeration and agglutination of symbols and images, the neo-hymnograf poet considering the symbol from the Mircea Eliade’s perspective: “The symbolic thinking is not the exclusive prerogative of the young, the poet or the mentally disturbed; it is consubstantial to human being: it precedes language and discursive thought. The symbol reveals certain aspects of reality - the most profound - which reject any other means of knowledge. The images, symbols and myths are not arbitrary creations of the psyche; they respond to a need and fulfill a function: revealing the most secret ways of being. “[19] Beyond the preference poet to archaic forms of expression, lyrics remind us of the idea enunciated by Metropolitan Valeriu Anania in “Word illuminating the Holy Scriptures”: “Words are symbolic ways of the word, through which the immanent reality and transcendence is made known to men, theology being the discourse about God and philology being the enunciation and the unpackagingof the meanings of words – symbol.”[20] Between theology and literature, Father Daniil Sandu Tudor’s akathist-hymns reiterate
- 58 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.5
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy the accepted symbols of hymnal Byzantine poetry, Old Testament and New Testament Biblical symbols, probably passing them in successive symbolic lineages, which we will try to demonstrate in the following chapters the work. IV. POETICAL EXCURSUS: FROM THE RELIGIOUS IMAGE TO THE MYSTICAL THRILL Father Daniil Sandu Tudor’s creation can serve as a support for the demonstration that mystical poetry involves a sublimation of religious poetry. Mystical poet hardly practices to express the inexpressible, using the accepted symbols, unique structures that can cipher what he has received from the Holy Spirit, in a moment when he felt kidnapped, absorbed, unchained and voiceless, moment in which his thoughts and everything related to pneuma was locked. In other words, the mystical poetry is a higher level, a continuation and even a transfiguration of religious poetry. Notable is, in this respect, the delimitation made by the researcher Eugen Dorcescu in his study Poetics of non-immanence[21], by pointing out that both include the concept of mystery but what gives them autonomy is their position using it as a reference point. Therefore, the religious poetry is generally defined as a form of understanding the mystery, while the mystical poetry is a living of the mystery. It is admitted that the delineation is not a categorical one, it supporting various accents and, we believe it is important to specify that a religious poetry can present transfiguring, mystical shades, just as mystical poetry can escape to the religiousness. Sergei Bulgakov in his work Orthodoxy defined the mystic in the following terms: “It’s called <<mystic>>” that inner experience that allows the contact with the spiritual world, with the divine; this name is also given to an inner conception (not only external) of our natural world. For mysticism to be possible, the man must have the special capability of supra-rational and super-sensitive direct conception, the ability of an intuitive conception, which we call
http://dialogo-conf.com
“mystical”. This concept must be distinguished of soul state, restricted only to the subjective area - <<psychologism>>. Because the mystical experience has an objective side; it involves going out of inner and a contact or a spiritual meeting. “[22] Therefore, the mystical poet Sandu Tudor puts his brush in the logic of prayer, meditation, rejecting all that separates him from God. The neo-hymnologist creator is aware that the act of writing helps to purify the soul of him who yearns for union with God, approaching him from special, illuminated living moments, which appear in a stage of his life when he starts to realize the reflection of God’s Light on him, strengthening him to continue the path towards a full communion with God. The Mystery of this increasing persistence comes from the exhortation Father Daniil Sandu Tudor sends to readers of all ages. In his vision the writer should ensure that the text does not remain “a graveyard of thoughts put under signs”[23] because if “shadow of this kingdom of understanding... embraces us, then we discover that, by the grave of the letters, the resurrection sits...; let us blow over these signs and they hurriedly will enliven “. [24] Returning to the analogy of religious poetry / mystical Christian poetry we appreciate that both describe certain passages of the Bible, significant events in terms of spiritual point of view, the differentiation consisting in how the poet receives the teachings, and more specifically, the way in which he transposes these contents into words (variance also conditioned by the poetic talent or one’s sensitivity). Thus, even if at first sight they may seem simple, the words in the Tudorian texts hide in themselves a deep sense, almost untouchable, which the reader can discern only if he/ she is willing to meditate upon them, and by repeated readings to discern their essence and strength. The poet preference for archaic words, full of church flavour, represents a constant of his writing which is present since his first poems (works appeared in “Thinking” magazine or
- 59 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y “Comornic” volume). This search for the letter from the Ceaslov, Homilies and other religious books, for the words full of purity, denotes Father Daniil Sandu Tudor’s effort to discover the real language in which Life pulsate, gathered in the thought. The specifics of the tudorian poetic text’s organisation, enciphres the author’s need to subscribe into a different communication, so constituted code paving the way for access to God, in the Word of whom he wants to be when he is at his writing desk, to fulfill the orders. V. THE CROSS MOTIF IN EASTERN AND WESTERN MYSTIC As noted in previous lines Sandu Tudor’s Akathist hymns, norm-texts between theology and philology, undertake looking for the redemptive power of the Logos, being spawned from the monk-poet’s love who understands to be humble in order to discover the path to deification. In Sandu Tudor’s poetry, nature becomes transfigured earth, the word returns to Logos, Love bears the communion of mankind with God. The Tudorian imaginary poetic makes an occasion of finding numerous biblical symbols, from the Old Testament and from the New Testament, passed through successive symbolic lineages, within the cross is a coreimage: “The Discovery of the Cross of Christ is the great enigma of the world. It forever shows us the tragic fate of life, even in deification. Even deified, our cross and the cross of Christ does not perish.The Savior of the world is only a transfiguration of the Cross, a pass from the death Cross to the Resurrection Cross. What does this mean? That salvation will not remove and does not remove the death but only overcomes it. <<With the death stepping on the death” is an eternal slogan of Life”[25] As it is known, if other religions have chosen to ignore or repudiate the symbol of the cross, Christians have turned it into an identitarian brand, into an ideological, practical and ritualical form of the representation of own specificity.
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Moreover, besides the fact that the cross is a symbol of identity, the Christian Cross includes the symbol of Son of God the Father’s supreme sacrifice, for the love shown to the created world and especially to man. Last, but not least, the cross connotes the idea of destiny that we must face in this fleeting existence, each mortal being a cross bearer until the moment of the Grand Journey beyond from ontological and spiritual point of view. One question appears: what is the specificity of Eastern mystical poetry? We again call on the illustrious theologian Sergei Bulgakov’s authority who appreciates this demarcation (Western / Eastern mystic) as follows: “... the Christ’s countenance is universal; and every soul seeks its own image in Christ: a variety of spiritual gifts results from here. In this sense, in the sense of one’s own way, it can be said that every man and every people has its own Christ. The Catholic community especially loved the humanity of Christ, of Christ suffering on the cross. Being crucified with him, living with him the passion and the cross is the essence in Catholic mysticism, characterized by stigma, by way of the cross, by the cult of the five wounds etc. Naturally, the passion of Christ is holy to whole Christianity; entirely Christian world bowes in front of the cross. [...]But not the image of crucified Christ impressed the soul of Orthodox people and possessed it, but rather the image of sweet and humble Christ, lamb of God, who took upon himself the sins of the world and who humbled himself to getting the look of a humble human form; he who came into this world to serve all people and not to serve him; he who has suffered without a murmur, the outrage and dishonor and responded with love. [...]For this, the <<people of God>> (poor and simple) are so characteristic for Orthodoxy [...] people who are not from this world and who do not have here on earth <<enduring city>> cloaks, homeless people, <<madmen in Christ>>, who gave up their human reason, accepted the appearance of madness, to voluntarily suffer outrage and humiliation <<for the love of Christ>>. “[26]
- 60 -
We bear in mind that Western mystic
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.5
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy characterized by stigma, by way of the cross, the cult of the five wounds, enrolls in a rather rational, explicit order, particularly the consequences of Christ’s love for humanity while orthodoxy renounces to the explicit path, Eastern mysticism being, more implicitly, internalized. For this reason, although the Eastern mystic poets live intensely the mystical phenomenon, their expression is kept in the confessive frames and always in the form of a dialogue between man and God. VI. The Cross motif in Eastern and Western Mystic Therefore, the Christian cross is a symbol that creates the link between heaven and earth because it is the symbol of the sacrifice of God for our redemption which is necessary because of our sins, particularly the original sin committed by Old Adam who is the man obeying other rules and also obeying the Old Testament religious and moral principles. The Cross, the crucifixion of the Saviour on the sacrificial and redemptive Cross, mediates the relation between immanence and transcendence, asymmetric realities from the existential point of view, circumscribed about an equation with many unknowns. God’s Son, who has a duplicated existence both by nature and by the role that he had fulfilled: redemption, salvation and deification of man, can help humanity in approaching knowledge of the transcendental world: “Do you make the sign of the cross? Make it perfectly. Not a crippled gesture, in a hurry, that would not have been worth it. [...] Because it’s Father’s sign, the sign of Redemption! On the cross, Jesus redeems all mankind; through it, He sanctifies all men until their deepest “[27]. This immanence - transcendence rapport is arranged by the dual nature of the Saviour as a symbol of the link between heaven and earth, Jesus Christ becaming the representation of the power of God in Heaven, and not that of Caesar
http://dialogo-conf.com
on earth, even if the Messiah was expected and desired by Jewish people as such. The reader of the Tudorian akathist-hymns metaphorically “dwells” in the world of aesthetic ideas, participating, by reading, at the process of world sacralisation through the sacrificial and redemptive cross. Moreover, the relationship between immanence and transcendence can be deduced not only from the dual nature of Jesus Christ, but also from the trinitarian status of the Trinity of God: God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit, all sizes belonging to a transcendent God, apophatical and cataphatical, possible to be known through the kenotic phenomenon, that is it descends and then objectifies itself in the cognisable reality through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, as divine cosmic energy: “Think of all this when you do the sign of the cross. Of all the symbols, none is holy. Make it good, patiently, broad heed. It will envelop thus all flesh (the inner and the outer being, thought and will, heart and feeling) will strengthen, will brighten a sanctify by the power of Christ, in the name of God the One in three Hypostases (Persons) “.[28] The monk-poet understands that salvation and deification can not be achieved only by means found in social reality, by our way of thinking and behaving here in this real life, even though the teleological and religious fundament is found in another world, which is transcendent and imperceptible from the rational point of view. In this respect, completely aware, Sandu Tudor customizes this situation in his akathisthymns, which involves permanent resettings of the reader in the horizon of the above mentioned symbols latency. The reader is constantly challenged to cross the verb boundary to identify the lines which generate new meanings, reorganized by a transcendental logic, which involves the permanent dialogue between man and God, “Hymn of a wide meaning or, better, a whole hymnology, the akathist is a complete cycle of religious poetry. It is a kind of total, gathered as an uninterrupted ring of songs, which returns in its inner to indefinitely run, enumering one by one: dramatic chants
- 61 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y Rejoice, strong bone continuance;
intertwined with other epical chants and bound together with purely lyrical litanies“[29]. Read from this perspective, the cultical Tudorian poetry offers not only the original meanings of the symbols of the cross, as we find in Biblical, patristic and folklore literature tradition, but also in the power lines that secondary images of this symbol generate. The Cross appears in Sandu Tudor’s work as a symbol of the sacrifice and love - according to Biblical tradition - which includes the whole humanity, the crown of creation of the entire universe. Undubitably, the monk-poet understood that this assumed sacrifice is not free, because love (which formed the basis of sacrificial act) is intended to give meaning to transfiguration. Also in biblical tradition, which the Romanian troparions took, mirroring it in the people’s consciousness, the cross symbol always appears linked to the image of suffering and oxymoronically, to the image of resurrection. There is no cross without sacrifice, and sacrifice without the joy and glory of the resurrection. This image of joy, like a blessed state gained by resurrection, is significantly recurrent in hymnal poetry of Father Daniil Sandu Tudor. In this way the monk-poet decodes the apparent paradox, the sacrificial cross becaming the equivalent to the freedom to devote your life and being to the one next to you, to ennoble the earth which is transfigured by the Resurrection: “Rejoice, bridge to the supernatural shore; Rejoice, monastic printing press; Rejoice, the One hidden in the gravel waters; Rejoice, that in you The Unrevealed works; Rejoice, the one you know the song of the mysteriously River; Rejoice, the chosen to be the Lord’s announcer; Rejoice, light like fire on treasures; Rejoice, the waved of the world whirlpools;
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Rejoice from the coffin with bright relics; Rejoice, Dimitrie the New, You, Pious. “ (The Akathist of Our Father St. Allpious Demetrius the New, Oxherd in Basarabov - Icos III)[30] The religious imaginary of Tudorian akathisthymns configures a few constants. First of all, the cross symbol enters into inter-relationship with the images: suffering, resurrection, joy and, by extension, the fruitfulness of being and the establishment of a new ground by transfiguration of the offering: “The boyars bring founder moneys To Your patron name, build shrine May the Holy Cross shadow to overshadow your body, On the firth of prayer to rest There, in your unknown village, Where, relics, awhile you wanted to sit “ (The Akathist of Our Father St. Allpious Demetrius the New, Oxherd in Basarabov - Icos VIII).[31] Strictly to the text level, of the literalness level, we identify the poet’s preference for the actualisation of the symbol of the cross in metaphorical phrases, in which he already starts from a superior level of significance, the one of the word cross in the biblical text, in order to reach connotations of personal type. However, the Tudorian text connotations are not outside the biblical text. For example, in the Hebrew culture, the cross is the symbol of the moral decay perpetuated after death, because only thieves were condemned to death by crucifixion. The cross was a degrading punishment and therefore, the object was a sign of repudiation of a person by the society. The Tudorian text refuses this decoding key of the cross symbol. For the monk-poet the cross, as in the text of
- 62 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.5
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy Bible, becomes the symbol of salvation through and from love by the Saviour’s assumed, aware sacrifice, and, as we have already pointed out, requires a direct relationship with the images of suffering, resurrection and joy: “Putting away the sadness of the world, free from all the blame, clothed in Christ, kissing your holy bone, day of crucifer to keep, after your holy example, unbridled Church. And in the dreaded Covenant should we speak to victory the undefeated Hallelujah “ (The Akathist of Our Father St. Allpious Demetrius the New, Oxherd in Basarabov Kontakion XI)[32] It is important to emphasize that the symbol of the cross in Sandu Tudor’s cultic poetry never loses the connection with the symbolic originar images even if, in the immediate context, it specializes, it customises.Thus, the cross becomes the symbol of the sacrifice that was made for the humanity perceived in diaconate; The cross is an axis mundi; the cross symbolizes the freedom of flight or the right path of faith confessed by the martyrs: “For his right hand was the wing and the cross” (Maximus the Confessor). When the cross borrows images of the purifying fire it is vested with all these attributes by the presence of the Logos. Another way of signifying, with strong influences from Christian poetry, starts from a common trope in folklore literature, akin to metaphor - metonymy. In particular, the metonymy cross-wood was favoured on the one hand, by the structure of folklore language, where the word tree, branch or trunk is often replaced with wood and, on the other hand, by the ancient Christian symbolistic, where the apple is the symbol of the cross :
http://dialogo-conf.com
“In the ordinance of the caste, the vigorous Word carved you a monk, as the holy wood “ (The Akathist of Our Father St. Allpious Demetrius the New, Oxherd in Basarabov - Icos III).[33] Also an Old Testament origin reason, this time interpreted from the symbolic modulations of the New Testament view, is why the groom motif as image of the Savior. In fact, Sandu Tudor develops in his hymnographic poetry a real technique of the secondary images, even if it is the cross symbol, or other biblical symbols. The secondary images, recurrent in the dense net of the central images, aim to diversify the connotations and the imagery of the original symbol. Thus, a series of secondary images revolve around the symbol of the cross, actualised in the akathist-hymns text through the noun cross and through the conventional image of it from the biblical text (crucifixion of Jesus): the crossroads, the cemetery, the crucifixion, the holiness, the martyrdom. The secondary images are not born for themselves but as mirrors which reflect in deep waters, sequentially or fulminant, a particular symbol that organizes the entire material of the universe and the immaterial immensity of love: Logos, the First Word. As outlined by Sergei Bulgakov in his work - Orthodoxy: “Life of Orthodoxy is related to the vision of other worlds and without this vision, Orthodoxy does not exist. The divine worship contains, as noted above, not only memory but also the reality of celebrated events. As his spirituality grows, the believer increases his participation to the Savior’s life, the Virgin’s and the saints’ lives, and thereby he is in connection with the things of the unseen world. This mystical realism serves as the entire Orthodox religious foundation; without this realism, Religion would not achieve its purpose of being the eternal updating of the mystery of the the Incarnation. For this reason, the orthodox Cult also addresses to the mystical feeling first, in order to communicate with it and
- 63 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y to help it ascend”[ 34]. The conventional image of the cross from the biblical and folklore tradition is threatened and then restored by a number of centers generating sense (secondary images). The Tudorian poetic imaginary configures, in our opinion, at least two directions that are part of the secondary graphics of the cross symbols around the Logos. The first direction, of ascenssional type, is manifested by the recurrent images of the immanence to the transcendence and from the moment to eternity, images of the cross in human history, holiness, poet, groom, images of the cross which circumscribe, in fact, also attributes of the Logos. “Sinner, under cold horror, I kiss the ground-n that Your Cross was stuck, the sign I bow to “ (The Akathist of Our Father St. Allpious Demetrius the New, Oxherd in Basarabov -Condac X)[35]. The internal tension of these images, generated by compensatory horizons between they tend: this earth in whose elements, which became symbols, the other ground is read, transfixed – it is converted into what we might call a satellite image, the image of balance, which usually occurs around the secondary images of the symbol of the cross and reiterates one of the fundamental connotations of the cross symbol in the monk-poet’s work - bridge between heaven and earth, transcendent and immanent. We read in this image, by its permanent association with secondary images, the second direction for the organization of symbols, namely balance, equilibrium. In other words, the cross is not only staircase leading from the immanent to the transcendent and the visible, tangible aspect of the sacrifice, but beyond all these possible interpretations, the cross is the one to keep a balance between what is - this earth - and what must to – the transfigured earth (gateway to transcendent): “You’re the straightest heed
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
that unites the power of sharpness, beyond words, in a flashlight of mind: the sharpness of ice thought with the burning rush of life, Hot and cold arranged-n Cross which bring the Highest Meaning. (“The Akathist-Hymn at the Burning Stake of the Mother of God” - Icos VI)[36]. “The ice thought” is the symbol of the rigid dogmatization, lacking experience and love, reminding of the narrow approaches of the Pharisees, Sadducees and hypocrite Scribes, blinded by the letter of the old law, who had justified their behavioral deviations by so-called consequences of their formalistic religiosity. With the coming of Christ, The Christian Church teaching, founded on His sacrifice on the cross, finds the necessary fulfillment and perfection that is the “sharpness” in the sense of the monkpoet. But this is not enough for perfection, it but must be accompanied by “burning rush of life”, that is full of living pathos of being Christ’s adepts, a modus vivendi seated in the logic of the flame alive. However, this organization excludes compromise, middle way, and intermediate temperature. The entwining of hot and cold requires the preservation of the two extremes ( not the mixture, the interference) and emphasising them by the cross - as a sacrifice of each one’s life, by assuming the fruits of Christ’s redemption. Therefore, the analysis of the cross symbol in the monk-poet’s norm-texts proves that Sandu Tudor refuses the sterile word and has the ability to develop the state of mystical ecstatic in his texts.Understood by the Christianity as a culmination of lucidity, the ecstatic state is the way in which both the outside and the interior world are revealed to the mystic. The imagistic scenario develops the state of ecstatic mystic, the exit toward divinity, toward the transcendent. The Akathist-hymn poet, the beneficiary of a
- 64 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.5
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy inner deep metamorphosis, is concerned with the change of working material - the word – which is illuminated by him from the interior. Thus, Sandu Tudor conveys the meaning of the mystical experience into poetic experience, transfiguring it, the latter, until the discovery of its mystical dimension.[37] His poetry is important by deciphering its mystical significance, identifiable by its living research. The openings created by reflections, the mystical and iconic anthropology which are developed in his akathist analyse and propose a model and an analysis in the same direction with the Church tradition and with an authentic Christian vision as far as its dynamic transposition in words concerns. For the conventional image, even if it deviates from the Archetype, a connection with it is still maintained by a minor structure of ways. In this type of image “there is a homogeneity of the signifier and of the signified,”[38] the image representing a response, imagination, energy. The Akathist, the norm-text which meets its own specific, aesthetic and visionary, pre-tastes the same mystical experience of world overcoming out of the inertia, with pneumatisation, with filling itself with the Spirit’s presence. Conclusions Therefore, the analysis of the cross symbol representation in the monk-poet’s norm-texts proves that the tudorian imaging scenario develops the state of ecstatic mystic, understood as a culmination of lucidity. In this way, it is revealed to the mystic both the outside world and the inner one, hence the possibility of going out, to divinity, to the transcendent. Tudorian Akathist-hymns preserved, as it seems, in their message, a secret, indestructible connection with the emitent’s destiny, whi is mieromartyr, confessor of the Orthodox faith not only by word but also by deed, model and support both for the laity and Christian clergy alike. The writer Sandu Tudor appropriated the theological culture through assimilation of the dogmatic writings, of the Filocalia teaching, of
http://dialogo-conf.com
the Bible, hagiography and history of Byzantium, but especially by faith and love by practicing the prayer of the heart, the one who raised Monk Agathon to the enlightenment stage, a stage in which the Taboric light can be seen. Thus, we justify our selection operated in this study, which was dictated not only by reasons of textual economy but also by the idea that the most direct and fruitful meeting with Father Daniil Sandu Tudor - through his writings - is in these norm-texts, a verbal way of communicating with God. The symbol of the cross in Tudorian cult poetry is an effective means of reflecting the relation between immanence and transcendence, connection of which the Christian religion emerges. Father Daniil Sandu Tudor’s literary and liturgical creation - mystical poet (neo-hymnologist) of the Romanian Orthodox Church - reveals an ongoing, lucid effort of the monk-poet who understood to struggle to search those meanings of the word that would allow the reconfiguration of the Word inside him, through the way of communication that is mainly offerred by revelation, the model being God’s Mother, who is in fact the axis around which all the ideas and images of the whole Akathist-Hymn revolve in an apotheotic, holy praise for the Theotokos. The admirable zeal with which the author himself understood to bend over every word, his febrile’s search for poetic perfection and spiritual depth is proved by the long creative process, “The AkathistHymn at the Burning Stake of the Mother of God” being developed during more than a decade. The Word and the soul expression, show the image and the relationship between absolut units, between faces that communicate with each other. Poetic identity is based, at prereflexiv, preanalytical level, in the pure act of self utterance of the being. The Auroral state of poetic utterance points to the first status of the being in the theological sense. In the poet’s akathist-hymns the act of literary creation is at the service of the discovery of the transcendent, toward which incessantly tends, but also of the unexpected inners of the heart, in which God makes present Himself.
- 65 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y Religious imaginary is designed as a journey of deification of the human being, crossing countless spheres, until symbolically reaching of Tabor, the mountain that housed the epiphany of light. The state of contemplation is regarded as the state in which man comes to know its own weaknesses, but at the same time to filter them through the light of God. Time dissociates in anabazic time, during which the being tends toward absolute, and catabazic, turning toward the center of the heart. The leitmotif “Rejoice, hatching Bride of endless prayer,” synthetically highlights, both the truth that prayer Virgin is a form of annihilation of the limits of space and time, the only way to union with God and that The AkathistHymn especially represents a state of prayer, a message that does not want to be understood but wants to be mostly lived. This type of text proposes a different perspective to the reader, the typological reading, forcing him/ her to stand up when his/her turn comes to experience the prayer in his/her inner being. The Virgin Mary is, by Her very divine nature, light, a supernatural light able to pass through various metamorphoses to mediate the communication between the divine world and the human race: “Mother of God is the announcer of the Heavenly joy, but Her glory is terrible great. [...] She is right captain of Angels. The super strategist of heaven and earth. If we go up, detached from creatures, to God, above al, we find the Virgin and going down from God to creatures, after the Holy Spirit, we find the Virgin”. [39] Finally, the non-space and the nontime where the God’s fire abides, is metaphorised by Burning Stake, the stake that burns and does not consume, which the monk-poet struggled, giving us a paradigm of resistance by faith and culture, life and his work being destined to cipher a homo religious trajectory, one of the most authentic case. REFERENCES [1]
Ieroschimonahul Daniil Sandu TUDOR, „Meditații duhovnicești”, în vol. Taina
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Rugului Aprins, ed. cit., pp. 35-36. Idem, „Cartea Muntelui Sfânt”, în Scrieri I, ed. cit., p.110. [3] Ieroschimonahul Daniil Sandu TUDOR, „Meditații duhovnicești”, în vol. Taina Rugului Aprins., ed. cit., p. 31: „ O trăire plină și doctrina ei dezvoltă și amplifică, pentru a fi transmise în chip rodnic, un dat fundamental, o esență. De aceea, e nevoie de mijloace simple care să strângă condensate, să pună la îndemână de-a dreptul acel sens de viață. Trăirea și doctrina ei trebuie canalizate sau închise într-un sâmbure de energie spirituală, miezul lor adevărat trebuie acoperit, păzit cu o coajă. […] Pentru a ne întregi viața, pentru a ne ajunge dumnezeirea, ne trebuie sâmburi de har și semințe duhovnicești ale Domnului și Sfinților Săi. Numai o «sfântă plângere a Duhului Sfânt» e rodnică.” [4] Ibidem, p. 9. [5] Sandu Tudor, Seamă de cuvinte. Introducere la Acatistul preacuviosului părintelui nostrum Sf. Dimitrie cel Nou boarul din Basarabov. În Ieroschimonahul Daniil de la Rarău (Sandu Tudor), Acatiste. Prima ediție integrală, îngrijită de Alexandru Dimcea, Gabriel Moldoveanu, (Bucureşti: Editura Christiana, 2009), p. 9. [6] Ibidem, p.10. [7] Ibidem, p.10. [8] Ibidem, pp. 10-11. [9] Pr. Constantin JINGA, op. cit, p. 252. [10] Ibidem, p.10. [11] Ibidem, p. 11. [12] Caietele Preacuviosului Părinte Daniil de la Rarău (Sandu Tudor): Sfinţita rugăciune, (Bucureşti: Ed. Christiana, 2000), p. 197. [13] Idem, Ieroschimonahul Daniil, Sandu Tudor, omul şi opera, (Bucureşti: Ed. Christiana, 2005), p. 201. [14] Nichifor CRAINIC, „Rugăciunea lui Iisus, esenţa paisianismului”, în vol. Sfinţenia – împlinirea umanului. (Iaşi: Trinitas, Ed. Mitropoliei Moldovei şi Bucovinei, 1993), p. 182. [15] Sandu TUDOR, Seamă de cuvinte. Introducere la Acatistul preacuviosului părintelui nostru Sf. Dimitrie cel Nou boarul din Basarabov. În Ieroschimonahul Daniil de la Rarău (Sandu [2]
- 66 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.5
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy Tudor), Acatiste. Prima ediție integrală, îngrijită de Alexandru Dimcea, Gabriel Moldoveanu, (Bucureşti: Ed. Christiana, 2009), p. 11. [16] Sandu TUDOR, Pentru Marea Noapte a Fecioarei, în „Gândirea”, nr. 10, 1930, p. 336. [17] Dumitru STĂNILOAIE, Viaţa şi învăţătura Sfântului Grigorie Palama, ed.cit., p. 45. [18] Alexandru ULVINE „Notă bibliografică”, în Ioan ALEXANDRU, Pământ transfigurat, (Bucureşti: Ed. Minerva, 1982), p. XXV. [19] Mircea ELIADE, Imagini și simboluri. Traducere de Alexandra Beldescu, prefață de George Dumezil, (Bucureşti: Ed. Humanitas, 1994), p. 15. [20] Biblia sau Sfânta Scriptură, (Bucureşti: E.I.B.M.B.O.R., 2001), p. 7. [21] Eugen DORCESCU, Poetica non-imanenţei, (Bucureşti: Ed. Palimpest, 2009). [22] Serghei BULGAKOV, Ortodoxia, (Bucureşti: Ed. Paideia, 1994), p. 162. [23] Părintele Daniil de la Rarău (Sandu TUDOR), Caiete 2: Sfințita rugăciune, (Bucureşti: Ed. Christiana, 2000), p. 36. [24] Ibidem, p. 38. [25] Preacuviosul Părinte Daniil de la Rarău (Sandu Tudor), Caiete 3: Taina Sfintei Cruci, ed. Al. Dimcea, (Bucureşti: Ed. Christiana), p. 120. [26] Serghei BULGAKOV, Ortodoxia, (Bucureşti: Ed. Paideia, 1994), pp. 167-168. [27] Ieroschimonahul Daniil Sandu TUDOR, „Meditații duhovnicești”, în vol. Taina Rugului Aprins., ed. cit., p. 32. [28] Ibidem, p. 33. [29] Sandu TUDOR, „Seamă de cuvinte. Introducere la «Acatistul Preacuviosului Părintelui Nostru Sfântul Dimitrie cel Nou, Bouarul din Basarabov»”, în Ieroschimonahul Daniil de la Rarău (Sandu Tudor), Acatiste. Prima ediție integrală, îngrijită de Alexandru Dimcea, Gabriel Moldoveanu, Ed. Christiana, București, 2009, p. 10. [30] Ieroschimonahul Daniil de la Rarău (Sandu Tudor), op. cit., pp. 28-29. [31] Ibidem, p. 48. [32] Ibidem, p. 59. [33] Ibidem, p. 27.
http://dialogo-conf.com
Serghei BULGAKOV, Ortodoxia, (București: Ed. Paideia, 1994), p. 163. [35] Ieroschimonahul Daniil de la Rarău (Sandu Tudor), op. cit., p. 54. [36] Ibidem, p. 165. [37] Dumitru Stăniloae, Ascetica și mistica Bisericii Ortodoxe, (București: E. I.B. M. B.O. R., 2002). [38] Gilbert Durand, Structurile antropologice ale imaginarului.. Introducere în arhetipologia generală, Traducere de Marcel Aderca. Postfață de Cornel Mihai Ionescu, (București: Editura Universul Enciclopedic, 2000), p. 28. [39] Ieroschimonahul Daniil Sandu TUDOR, „Meditații duhovnicești”, în vol. Taina Rugului Aprins., ed. cit., p. 35. [34]
Bibliography [1] Bădescu, Laura, Sacris litteris. Încercare de sistem, în „Viaţa Românească”, XCIV, IanuarieFebruarie, București, 1999, nr. 1. (references) [2] Berdiaev, Nikolai, Sensul București: Editura Humanitas, 1992.
creației.
[3] Durand, Gilbert Structurile antropologice ale imaginarului. Introducere în arhetipologia general. Traducere de Marcel Aderca. Postfață de Cornel Mihai Ionescu, București: Editura Universul Enciclopedic, 2000. [4] Eliade, Mircea, Istoria credințelor și ideilor religioase, București: Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică, 1988. [5] Eliade, Mircea, Morfologia religiilor. Prolegomene. București: Editura Jurnalul literar, 1993. [6] Evdokimov, Paul, Femeia și mântuirea lumii. Traducere de Gabriela Moldoveanu,. București: Asociația Christiana, 1995. [7] Frunză, Sandu, O antropologie misticăintroducere în gândirea Părintelui Dumitru Stăniloae. Craiova: Editura Omniscop, 1996, p. 71. [A Mystical Anthropology Introduction in Father Dumitru Stăniloae’s Thinking. Craiova: Omniscop Publishing House, 1996, p.71]
- 67 -
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y [8] Frye, Northon, Marele Cod – Biblia şi literatura, Traducere de Al. Sasu și I. Stanciu. București: Editura Du Style, 1999, p.214. [9] Ică, diac. Prof. dr. Ioan I. Jr, Daniil Sandu Tudor-poet, schimnic, neoimnograf și martir, în „Revista Teologică”, anul I,nr.2, Sibiu, 1991. [10] Plămădeală, Mitropolitul Antonie, Rugul Aprins. Sibiu: Editura Arhiepiscopiei Sibiului, ediția electonică, 2002. [11] Stăniloae, Dumitru, Ascetica și mistica Bisericii Ortodoxe. București: Editura I.B. M. B.O. R., 2002. [12] Stăniloae, Dumitru, Viața și învățătura lui Grigorie Palamas. Sibiu: Seria Teologică, 1938. [13] Tudor, Sandu, Seamă de cuvinte. Introducere la Acatistul preacuviosului părintelui nostrum Sf. Dimitrie cel Nou boarul din Basarabov. În Ieroschimonahul Daniil de la Rarău (Sandu Tudor), Acatiste. Prima ediție integral, îngrijită de Alexandru Dimcea, Gabriel Moldoveanu, București: Editura Christiana. [14] Krzywon, Ernst Josef, Möglichkeiten einer Literaturtheologie, în „Der Evanghelische Erzieher. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik und Theologie”, 28, Jahrgang, 1976.
Session 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking
- 68 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
Session 2 The notion of “Transcendence” in Philosophy and Theology
This page was intentionally left blank
DIALOGO
2.2; 71-80 (2015)
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.6 Constanta, ROMANIA - 2016, March 3
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy
Transcendence of Theology, Philosophy and Science in Russian Cosmism 1. Emanuel George OPREA, PhD
2. Cristiana OPREA, PhD
Faculty of History, the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Moscow, Russia emanuel.oprea11@yahoo.com
Frank Laboratory for Neutron Physics, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research 141980 Dubna, Russia istina@nf.jinr.ru
3. Alexandru OPREA, PhD
Frank Laboratory for Neutron Physics, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research 141980 Dubna, Russia ionica@nf.jinr.ru
Abstract: Human interests to Religion and
Metaphysics are well explained by the desire of the people to answer to fundamental and eternal questions as “what is the sense of life” and “what is the purpose of life”. These questions have accompanied them from the beginning of conscious life. Many intellectuals, scientists and writers of former USSR and democratic Russia have brought essential contributions, opened new directions and finally have enriched with new concepts, ideas, ideologies and systems the worldwide Philosophy and Religion. A possible answer is the Creation allowing to Divinity to transcend in common life. Soul as Spiritual reflection of Divinity tends to perfection, reiterating in every generation the transcendence to God. At first sight there are no meeting points between Transcendence and Cosmism because the last notion has its beginning in the progress of Science. The evolution of modern Sciences, philosophical concepts and Religion gradually demonstrates correlated aspects which must be discovered in the future.
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
- 71 -
Keywords: Religion, Metaphysics, Transcendence, Cosmism, USSR, Transition, Russia I. INTRODUCTION
The origin of the word “Transcendence” is coming from the Latin “Transcendens” which means in direct translation “going beyond”. Transcendence is a philosophical term describing a form of knowledge fundamentally not based on empirical experience and observation moreover not accessible to the trough experience and common sense observations. In a large sense “Transcendence” can be understood as something “beyond of our world” in comparison with the term “Immanence” describing something “of this world”, intimately included in this world. In the strict philosophical sense “Transcendence” is defined as existence out of the possibility of the experience
eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928 printISSN: 2457-9297, ISSN-L 2392-9928 ISBN 978-80-554-1208-5
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y and is related to our knowledge and to the conditions of our experiences. Bertrand Russell1 has compared “transcendence transcendent” with a prism through which we are looking to the world. Here is the origin of the difference between transcendence and immanence; transcendence is positioned in our mind but it cannot be physically observed [1]. Figure 1. Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872 – 1970) According to opinion of Immanuel Kant2, transcendence is related to such notions as space and time. These notions characterize not only our Universe as our ability to perceive the Universe around us [2]. Figure 2. Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) In the philosophy of Kant transcendence was considered priori3 1 Bertrand Arthur William Russell (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970) – British philosopher, social and political activist, mathematician. He is known due to his works in the development of pacifism, atheism, liberal and leftist ideas and political tendencies. Russell brought fundamental contributions in the range of Logical Mathematics, History of Philosophy, Theory of Knowledge, Esthetics, Pedagogical sciences and Sociology. Russell is considered one of the founders of English Neo - Realism and Neo – Positivism. In 1950 he received the Nobel Prize for Literature (https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell). 2 Immanuel Kant (22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804) – German Philosopher the founder of classic modern German Philosophy. He was born in the town of Konigsberg, Prussia. In the present this town is in Russia and its name is Kaliningrad (https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Immanuel_Kant). 3 Priori - from Latin word “priori” which in a
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
form of cognition which is conditioning and determining all our experience and organizes our knowledge. Transcendental forms of our senses are the time and space, transcendental form of our mind (reason, intelligence) are categories like substance and causality, regulatory ideas of Pure Reason (for example the ideas of God, soul and the Universe like an Entire). Transcendence (priori) is in opposition, in one way, with the empirical experience which is considered posteriori, namely after the knowledge is obtained, and in another way “transcendence” is in opposition with itself as beyond of experience of things in themselves. The subject of knowledge is inherent according with idea of transcendent unity of apperception [2, 3]. Kant considers that many unsolved questions and issues like “the begin of the world”, “about God” and “about our freedom” are a part of transcendence dialectic. Transcendental knowledge, according to Kant, is knowledge before of experience, unconditioned by experience and its possibility. Moreover Kant had understood and defined the term of transcendence as the researches and analysis not of the physical objects itself as the type of cognition. A system of such terms and notions Kant had named and defined as “Transcendental Philosophy”. The introduction of “transcendental” by Kant had a serious influence on the Philosophical Sciences and the corresponding philosophical system values. Many philosophers like Edmund Husserl4 direct translation means “from the previous”. Priori represents the knowledge obtained before experience and independently thereof, knowledge well known in advance. The “priori knowledge” notion, due to Kant, is fundamental in Logic and Theory of Knowledge. 4 Edmund Gustav Albrecht Husserl (8 April 1859 – 26 April 1938) – Austrian philosopher, founder of modern phenomenology. The Husserl Philosophy is based on epistemological problematic and he tried with the help of the Philosophy to recover the lost connections
- 72 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.6
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy had started to talk about “transcendental reduction” [4] or like Jacques Derrida5 about “transcendental significance” [5].
Figure 5. Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 – 1882)
Figure 3. Edmund Husserl (1859 – 1938) T h e r e f o r e the notion of transcendence was very popular in the XIX century and we can affirm that it was passing the Atlantic Ocean in America where this term was taken by the romantic transcendentalism6. Under the word “transcendental” they have understood something very pure, not rotten, close to the Nature. Figure 4. Jacques Derrida (1930 - 2004)
between Science and human concerning and cares. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Husserl 5 Jacques Derrida (15 July 1930 – 9 October 2004) – French philosopher and Literature theoretician, the creator of the concept of “Deconstruction”. One of the most influential philosopher of the end of the XX century. The main purpose of Derrida Philosophy is the battle with the traditional European Philosophy by using the concept of Deconstruction in order to renew and understand the place of the Human in the World. In spite of his importance and contribution into the Philosophy Derrida was unfair ignored by British and American Philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Jacques_Derrida
Metaphysics and Transcendence in the former USSR II.
In the other side of the World, in the former USSR, the Archbishop Luke7 in his book “Spirit, Soul and Body” had explained the transcendentalism as the spiritual human possibilities that are hidden and are acting at subconscious level. Father Luke proposed, in the light of transcendentalism the epithet transcendental relative to the spiritual, mental and intelligent world. Figure 6. Archbishop Luke (Valentin Feliksovich Voyno - Iasenetsky) (1877 - 1961) What is the relation between so different and so contradictory at first sight notions like transcendental, Theology and Russian
6 In USA “Transcendentalism” was considered a philosophical, literal trend represented by the radical intellectuals, members of thee so-called “Boston School”. Their Manifest – Essay was the book published by Ralph Waldo Emerson (25 May 1803 – 27 April 1882) in 1836, named The Nature [6].
http://dialogo-conf.com
- 73 -
7 Archbishop Luke (9 May 1877 – 11 June 1961) – former Archbishop of Orthodox Russian Church from April 1946, Archbishop of Simferopol and Crimea. Archbishop Luke, before to dedicate his life to God, was a medicine doctor, surgeon and anesthetist with scientific works on anesthesiology, Doctor of Medicine Science, Professor, spiritual writer, Doctor of Theology (1959) and laureate of Stalin Prize (1944). His laic name was Valentin Feliksovich Voyno – Iasenetsky. Archbishop Luke was victim of the communist repression and has stayed in prison for 11 years (rehabilitated in 2000). He was canonized by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church at 22 November 1995 and later in August 2000 he was also canonized by Russian Orthodox Church. He was a promoter of the unity between religion and science.
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y reality? The problem is given by the fact that exists practically the unique situation when in the mentality of the peoples are mixing many unfolded conceptions. In chronological order these concepts are: first is the concept of communism to which the peoples had aspired and trusted; the concept of capitalism which at the time of 1990 years was very new and at all not clear; are following the 2000 years when more or less peoples are starting to understand the new situation; finally the ’10 years of this century, qualitatively different because there yields already a new generation of children and young peoples living their life entirely in the capitalism. The ’90 years in Russia and in Eastern Europe were times of disorders, of banditism, time of reversal of moral value scale, there were bad times and many peoples remind them until now. After decades of communism peoples were seeking for new moral support, spiritual values, finally they were seeking for God. A. Transitions. Russia. Democracy. Theology
and Metaphysics
The beginning of this century is characterized by the tendency and trying to “make order”, order in the mind and mentality of the peoples. It was already clear that peoples at their own must decide for themselves. It was started the time of the own risks thinking. Then had appeared, - on that boiling environment, schools, institutions and organizations (governmental and non – governmental) giving the possibility to find, know and to believe in God. The returning of the people to God was possible due to radical changes in the ’90 years of the last century. Russian Federation remains a laic, secular state, as is stated in the article 14 of 1993 year Constitution, but also in the article 28 are guaranteed the expression and religious freedom [8]. Moreover the Federal Law № 125-F3 from 26 Sept 1997 “On the freedom
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
of conscience and religious unions and organizations” stipulates the equality of citizens before the laws independently of relation and religious beliefs [9]. Non – governmental Analytical Russian Center “Yuri Levada” has shown that in 1987 the percent of religious population was less than 20% and in 2007 increased up to 70% related to the entire population. Levada Center had also established that in November 2012 74% are Orthodox, 1% Catholics, 1% Protestants, 1% Judaism, 7% Muslims, 5% Atheists, 10% no religion belief, 2% with no answer, Buddhism, Hinduism and others less than 1%. We can affirm that nowadays there are many directions for investigation. One of the most interesting is the Traditionalism in Russia as an ideology which is trying to change the society according with the world view of Ancient Greek where the writers, scientists and other representatives of culture had made their country greatest. It is well known that philosophers, thinkers and great minds have the power to generate decisively qualitative changes which raise the country to a leadership position between other countries and nations. Traditionalism can be understood as an ideology or philosophic and social movements based on tradition, practical wisdom centered on the force of the human mind and intellect [10]. Also, “Traditionalism” can be defined as a collection of ideas with conservative and reactionary character representing ideological defending reaction at the deviations of culture and society from an idealized model of a stable social order [11]. From these definitions it is quite clear that notions of Traditionalism and Conservatism8 are very close but we must note that traditionalism supposes the possibility of 8 Professor of Philosophy from Moscow State University, Boris Mezhuev, in one of his interviews to the journal “Kommersant – Vlast” (21 August 2006)), gave a very short and comprehensive definition of “Conservatism”: he considered that Conservatism is a careful and caution relation to the Progress.
- 74 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.6
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy progress and development, processes not possible in the case of Conservatism. Traditionalism has his origin in the European late Middle Age XVII century at the Philosophy of the Age of Enlightenment doubting on the traditional values provided by society of those times. Three hundred years later many young Russian people from hard time of transition period after ’90 years have embraced traditionalism in their searches for a stable and moral society. Moreover traditionalism passed into some form of conservatism in their nostalgia of glorious time of socialism. Nowadays the youth from Russia had not really hopping for a happy future. Here are concurring some conditions. The climate is very harsh, the life, due to many changes, also is not easy at all. In this way the Russian young peoples have knowing God through difficulties, hard life and trials. Part of these obstacles is very complex requesting a high spiritual strength. This is why some of these avant-garde young peoples are closed in themselves. But, in spite of all difficulties, these peoples seem to reach the eternal happiness. It is something hard to understand. It seems that something superior is looking and protect us all. You could say that is a curse, uniqueness, but in such kind of conditions the (pure) truth can be known, the way to God can be found. Approximately this is the way of knowledge described in the works of Yuri Mamleev9. Figure 7. Yuri Mamleev (1931 – 2015)
He had studied very seriously the literature opera of Lev Tolstoi10, the famous Russian writer. Lev Tolstoi is the Russian writer which had one of the greatest influences on the Literature and in his opera can be observed his immense efforts for knowing the divinity of God. But as he considered it never reached the necessary level of understanding and knowledge. Figure 8. Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoi (1828 - 1910) In the work of Mamleev the Russian traditionalism together with eternal knowledge of the Divinity can be followed. All is on the Russian way. In this approach we have gloominess, avant-garde, all is pressing on the internal human world. This is the Russian Traditionalism. Mamleev treated in his work the monarchism, a new tendency in Russia renewed in 2005. The monarchism has reborn having in the background the Orthodox religion. This is sustained as well on the TV by many transmissions. By television we can understand only the surface of Russian soul and spirituality but this spirituality due to many factors can be seen already not so often. The TV is transforming the Russian traditional reality. Mamleev tried to give the solution: according to his conception there are the belief in God, Orthodoxism and Monarchy, - even a despotic monarchy
9 Yuri Mamleev (11 December 1931 – 25 October 2015) – Russian writer, playwright, poet and philosopher, Laureate of the Prize “Andrei Belyi” (1991), founder of metaphysical realism and of Doctrine “Eternal Russia”, President of the Metaphysical Realism Club, member of the Russian Pen – Club, member of Russian Union of writers and dramatist. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Iouri_Maml
http://dialogo-conf.com
- 75 -
10 Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoi (9 September 1828 – 20 November 1910) – One of the most known Russian writer and thinker and for sure one of the greatest authors of the world, cultural illuminator of his time, publicist, religious thinker. His authoritative opinions based the foundation of a moral – religious current bearing his name. Lev Tolstoi was member of Russian Imperial Academy of Science (1879) and his opera had a great influence on the European Humanism. https:// fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_Tolstoi
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y illuminated and well intended. It is well to known that Mamleev was teacher of Mathematics at night schools but his activity was mainly concentrated to Literature. His novels, books, philosophical essays were published unofficially in the so-called SamIzdat11 because his work was not accepted due to the Soviet Censure. In spite of these many of his works have been published successfully in Western Europe and America. In the ’60 years of the last century, at his apartment from Yuzhinsky street in Moscow many personalities of “non official” culture have gathered. Among them were poets and artists like Leonid Gubanov, Henri Sapghir, Lev Kropivnitsky, Alexandr Haritonov and many others which fully affirmed themselves after ’90 in the new democratic society. Yuri Mamleev and his wife were emigrated in USA in 1974 and mainly because at that time he had no possibility to publish his works in USSR. In USA he taught and worked at Cornell University and lectured courses in other prestigious universities from America. Later, in 1983, Mamleev was moved to Paris (France) where first he has taught Russian Language and Literature at the Russian Institute for Culture and after at the well 11 SamIzdat (in Russian Самиздат) –was the publisher in the time of Socialism mainly in USSR and less in Eastern Europe Socialist countries for many works on literature, theater, philosophy, religion, social, political and economical essays, papers, musical and cinematographic production not accepted and approved by Censure. They were published using rudimentary ways of realization and distribution. Many representatives of non formal culture had published their works in such a way. After radical changes in the society at the end of ’90 the SamIzdat phenomenon was maintained as a possibility to publish works before of official approval due to some different reasons. The term of SamIzdat was spread in the Western countries also. By using the huge possibilities offered by Internet and social network we assist now to a reborn of Samizdat, not only in Eastern countries and Russia but in the whole world.
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
known Institute for Eastern Civilizations. In the period of his forced emigration, Jacques Catteau12, one of the greater authorities on Slavism, considered in 1986 that Mamleev is a respectable successor of Gogol and Dostoievsky. The opera of Mamleev (Philosophy and Literature) treats in a new approach the subtle interconnections between human soul, spirit and Divinity. In the philosophical work “The Fate of the Existence” he had defined a new philosophic system where human soul and ephemeral life on the Earth are in some transcendental relations with Spirit, Divinity and God [12]. Mamleev considers that Creation is the bridge between human soul on the one side and Spirituality on the other side, between ephemeral existence in this world and Divinity. Divinity is Eternal and therefore is not changing. The soul is immortal but under permanent changes. Through Creation the soul has unique chance to meet the Divinity because the Divinity does not knows the experience, the suffering or the joy of the human soul induced by permanent changes. Creation links Soul and Spirituality. The Divinity “in this way has access to something sublime from the “periphery” that not exists in the “Center”. In a harmonic way Mamleev in his Philosophy gives a new, consistent sense of human not eternal life and the key is the Creation. These assertions are not reducing at all the importance of Divinity, - of the God. God is the origin of the all consider Mamleev, but only Creation transcends our life into our internal conscious or nor conscious aspirations to God and Divinity. Another interesting author is Viktor Olegovich Pelevin13. He is considered one of 12 Jacques Catteau (1935 – 2013) – Honored Professor of Sorbonne University in Paris, eminent Slavicist, remarkable translator, specialist on Dostoievsky, Director of the Jurnal “Revue des etudes slaves” (1990 – 2008). http://www.etudes-slaves.paris-sorbonne.fr/ spip.php?article1486 13 Viktor Pelevin (born 22 November 1962) – Russian
- 76 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.6
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy the authors who are not “en vogue”. Figure 9. Viktor Pelevin (born 1962) Many literary critics consider that Pelevin works reunite Buddhist14 motives together with elements of postmodernism15 and absurdism16. Other authors consider that Pelevin in his works try to combine Buddhism with Shamanism17 although Pelevin never wrote about these. The source of inspiration for Pelevin is the modern Russian reality, the streets of his hometown Moscow. writer, poet, author of many books, stories, novels, essays, Laureate of many prizes for Literature. https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Pelevin 14 Buddhism – Religious and philosophical teaching about spiritual awakening having its beginning on the VI century. The founder of Buddhism is considered Siddhartha Gautama or as named latter Shakyamuni Budha or simply Budha. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Buddhism 15 Postmodernism – term defining similar phenomena in the social and cultural life of the world in the second part of the XX century. Postmodernism characterizes the situation of modern culture, including its original philosophic position, before postmodern arts and mass culture of those times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Postmodernism 16 Absurdism – philosophical system originated in existentialism considering that the human existence has no meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism 17 Shamanism – is an earlier form of religion based on the belief that the Shaman is communicating with the spirits when he is in a state of trance in order to reorient the transcendental energies of the unseen world of Spirits into this world. Shamanism is related with magic black art, fetishism, totemism and animism practices. Some forms of Shamanism can be found practically in any religion of the world. Shamanism was very developed before the Christian era at many people from Northern Europe, Siberia, Far East, South – East of Asia, Africa and to the Indians from America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamanism
http://dialogo-conf.com
The heroes of Pelevin stories in many cases are usual peoples from our days in an usual for us atmosphere or they are science fiction heroes (Pelevin is an engineer as education) but all of them are “surrounded” by a transcendental aura, they have experienced transcendent, are hoping on it, and in a magical trend to give a sense in their life, to make order in it, to discover the hidden (to the common eyes) Symmetry of Divinity, finally to find their place in awesome construction of God. As a sign of reconnaissance of his activities many of his works have been translated on the main languages of the world, including Chinese and Japanese. According to the Internet page OpenSpace. ru18, Pelevin was considered the most important and influent intellectual person of Russia. Also, after some non confirmed data, in April 2009, he was included in the group of the most important 1000 peoples, personalities of culture, in the world19. B. Russian Cosmism
Cosmism is an existentialist philosophical current which consider the survival of the mankind one of the main tasks of humanity. Due to technological development and evolution the survival will be possible by the migration of the mankind into the Cosmos, a transhumance to other planets. The ideas of Cosmism have their origin in the anthropogenic view of the Universe, with some teological purposes. Cosmism in the first stages had considered the Man as main in the anthropological Universe with Divinity loosing His leader position. In the modern Cosmism, taking into account the
- 77 -
18 OpenSpace.ru – Russian Internet social, political publication portal reflecting modern and contemporary cultural, artistic and literary activities. http://www. openspace.ru 19 Five popular modern writers from Russia – http:// www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/rbth/5214172/Fivepopular-modern-Russian-writers.html (24 April 2009).
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y evolutions in Sciences, Philosophy, Religion and Ethics it is very necessary to redefine the position of Divinity and Human and the corresponding interrelations and reciprocal connections [14]. Cosmism has its origin in the late years of the XIX century on the ideas of Russian intelligent scholar teacher, Nikolay Feodorovich Feodorov20. Figure 10. Nikolay Feodorov (1829 - 1903) Russian Cosmism at the beginning was based on the ideas of Sciences and culture of Proletariat (Proletkultism) within the anthropogenic view with the Man conducting the force of Sciences in a Cosmos (Cosmic space) dominated by a complex universal order that must be discovered for the benefits of the Humanity. In parallel with the progress of Sciences the ideas of Cosmism has developed, including step by step and increasing the role of Divinity in this ideology. Figure 11. Constantin Tsiolkovsky (1857 - 1935) Another leader of Russian Cosmism was Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky21. Related to the subject of the present paper Tsiolkovsky for the first time proposed the term of noosphere representing a sphere 20 Nikolay Feodorovich Feodorov (9 June 1829 – 28 December 1903) – Russian religious thinker, philosopher and futurologist, Library scientist, founder of Russian Cosmism. 21 Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky (17 September 1957 – 19 September 1935) – Russian and Soviet scientist autodidact, scholar teacher and inventor. Founder of theoretical Cosmonautics. He justified why rockets are necessary to travel in Cosmos, proposed a prototype for multistep rockets. His scientific works are related to Cosmonautics, Dynamis of rockets and Aeronautics/
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
of Intelligence. Noosphere is the result of the evolution of Biosphere with the Man accomplishing the main role in the evolution of the complex ordered Universe. It is quite evident that in the socialism and communism times it was forbidden to talk about Divinity, God or Transcendence and the scientists “have accepted” this by default. But many scientists in contact with the great discoveries of that period have the intuition of the greatness of the Universe as a reflection of Divinity. The term of Noosphere is a proof in this way. The transcendental connection between Cosmos, Universe and the “hidden” God and physical life is assured by Noosphere which supposed the knowledge of the Law of the Universe, meaning in fact a permanent development of Human minds tending to perfection. The astronauts being in Space had felt His Power and Divinity. No wonder and not in vain the astronauts before to their spatial mission repeat (by superstition) in details all movements of their colleagues who finished with success their travels and returned safely on the Earth. Such kind of superstitions among astronauts define and demonstrate the transcendental relation between Man and Divinity through Sciences, - Sciences in this case bringing God in the physical three dimensional life. CONCLUSION The interest in metaphysical aspects of the existence in this world is normal and natural because this trend is related to spiritual needs and desires to find and give a sense of human life. Hyperfine and unseen wires connect the day by day life with spiritual Universe. God, in the many forms of manifestations transcends in the physical world. It is our task to open the eyes, to listen to the hearth and soul, the sense of non eternal existence that through Creation meets the God.
- 78 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.6
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy This was well demonstrated even in the hard time for religion in the Socialist period of Eastern Countries. In USSR, the origin country of Socialism and Communism, the metaphysical problems were of first priority for people in spite of the fact that it was never officially recognized. Moreover, the official authorities, due to the wide distributions of mentioned issues, “had closed the eyes”. As evidence we have the underground publications of many books, papers, essays and other on Religion and Metaphysics which, in fact, were real masterpieces. The period of radical social changes in USSR of ’90 years of the last century, the so – called period of transition to a new democratic society, to a new country, Russia, had brought to the surface, made “official” Religion, metaphysical sciences, movements, currents and tendencies. It is no wonder of such phenomena. The intellectual potential is very large, huge, we can affirm. Lots of intellectuals, writers, engineers, priests, scientists from the all domains have started to investigate with large interest the metaphysical issues. We do not know precisely if it is good or bad especially when they are going far from the Saint Bible and God. But we know for sure that they correspond to a fundamental human need of the peoples to find out the sense of existence, why we are here, by trying to understand the ways of transcendental presence of Divinity in the human life. Cosmism, originated in Science, with the Man in the “Center”, had not included initially the Divinity. The diversity of the modern Sciences requested a new evaluation of the Man and Divinity related to the Cosmism. Nowadays the path is already visible. Sciences and general Knowledge represent the transcendental environment of humanity Spiritual needs into Divinity, a trend of our soul searching the God.
http://dialogo-conf.com
REFERENCES R. Bertrand 1984, Theory of Knowledge: The 1913 Manuscript, edited by Elizabeth Ramsden Eames in collaboration with Kenneth Blackwell. London. George Allen & Unwin. http://www.angelfire. com/md2/timewarp/russell.html. [2] I. Kant 2007, Critique of the Pure Reason (Kritika Chistogo Razuma) : Transcendental Aesthetics , Translated in Russian, by N. Lossky, Edited by Ts. G. Arzakanian and N.I. Itkin (Note by Ts. G. Arzakanian), Moskva: Eksmo, ISBN 5-699-14702-0. [3] A.N. Kruglov 1998, The Origin of Priori Concepts at I. Kant, Questions of Philosophy (Voprosy Filozofyi), № 10, p 126-132, Russian Academy of Science (in Russian). [4] E. Husserl 1997, “Logical Researches”, Jurnal of Philosophy and Literature “Logos”, № 10, p 5-64 (in Russian). http:// www.ruthenia.ru/logos/number/1997-10. htm#LU I. [5] J. Derrida, “Difference”, Marge de la Philosophie, Bulletin de la Societe Francaise de Philosophie, Sorbonne, Janvier (1968) (Translated in Russian by E. Gurko). http://www.gumer.info/ bogoslov_Buks/Philos/Derr/diff.php. [6] Emerson, Ralph Waldo 1995, “Nature”. The Oxford Companion to American Literature. Ed. James D. Hart. Rev. Philip W. Leininger. Oxford University Press. [7] Archbishop Luke (Voyno – Iasenetsky), Spirit, Soul and Body. Moscow: Orthodox Theological “Svyato – Tikhonovsky” Institute, 1997. http://www.wco.ru/biblio/ books/luka1/Main.htm. [8] Constitution of Russian Federation -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Constitution_of_Russia. [9] Federal Law № 125-F3 / 26 September 1997 - http://base.garant.ru/171640/. [10] Philosophy: Encyclopedic Dictionary, Under the Redaction of A.A. Ivin. Mozhaisk: Gardarriki Publishing House, 2004 (in Russian). [11] The Newest Dictionary of Philosophy, [1]
- 79 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y Under the Redaction of A.A. Gritsanov, Third Corrected Edition, “Knizhnyi Dom”. Minsk: Publishing House, 2003 (in Russian). [12] Youri Mamleev 2012, Destine de l’ettre: Suivi de au-dela de l’hindouisme e du bouddhisme, Published by Editions l’Age de l’homme (in French). http:// rvb.ru/mamleev/03philos/01sb/sb.htm (in Russian). [13] V. Pelevin 2003, The Dialectic of Transition Period from Nowhere to Nowhere, (Диалектика Переходного Периода из Ниоткуда в Никуда), EKSMO Publishing House, Moscow (in Russian). http://pelevin.nov.ru/texts/. [14] K.S. Khroutsky 2003, “In search of the universal personalist approach in biomedicine: a Cosmist hypothesis”. Paideusis - Journal for Interdisciplinary and Cross-Cultural Studies: Volume 3.
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
- 80 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2; 81-91 (2015)
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.7 Constanta, ROMANIA - 2016, March 3
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy
Transcendence as Objective Argument of the Existence of the Personal God Iacob COMAN, PhD
Pentecostal Theological Institute Bucharest, Romania iacob_coman@yahoo.com
Abstract: In science, generally, the idea of research captures apriori the authority of the human being on the investigated reality. Researchers’ presumption of superiority in relation to what search is always clear and incontrovertible. Theological science and Theology researchers can not benefit and can not claim that presumption. If however they do, then we no longer talk about Theology, but about philosophical religion. In this study we will investigate the issue of God’s transcendence as objective argument of His existence. Given that we will not talk about chemical substances or about literary analysis, our research is enriched or impoverished not by the scientific competence that we have, but by the availability of God’s Being and our willingness to make of this study a scientific expression and a scientific experience of a dialogical meeting between us and God. When there are no common approaches to Theology and Philosophy, approaches based on our ability to intuit and determine the reality that surrounds us, we will evoke, as honest as possible, the reality of the scientific dialogue between us and God, a dialogue necessary
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
- 81 -
in such a study. We hope that, based on the three chapters of this research, our thesis “Transcendence as Objective Argument of the Existence of the Personal God”, will convince both scientifically and in terms of the dialogue with God. Keywords: transcendence, person, nature, immanence, uncreated energies I. INTRODUCTION
Given the complexity of this topic, we will develop three theses by which we will point the research and argumentation methods used in this study. We do this in order to maintain a certain coherence and an academic biblical decency, necessary in any theological deepening. The theses that we will enunciate will provide the overall picture of the subject discussed and the differences of detail that put in dialectic and complementary different perspectives of theological and philosophical research. These theses are the following: 1. The existence of God as a person necessarily
eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928 printISSN: 2457-9297, ISSN-L 2392-9928 ISBN 978-80-554-1208-5
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y implies an “organization” of the being, which exceeds in content the idea of a person that is limited to the level of instinct and energy. 2. The existence of God as a person necessarily implies a pneumatological “organization”, reality superior to the idea that the person is a kind of spirit, self-aware, but without conscious reactions. 3. The existence of God as a person may posibly imply an “organization” of the being in a super-physical form, reality that surpasses the idea of a body, under the conventional acceptation, and keeps God in the transcendent acceptation. Due to God’s person simplification to the idea of instinct and energy and toward the idea of pneumatological reality, without the ability to react volitional and independent to different laws, as well as the influence of certain philosophies and Eastern religions, the science about God begins to abandon the perspective of the personal God. This reality leads to the reformulation of the idea of being, the reformulation of the idea of person and, not the least, to promoting the idea that God is impersonal. On the other hand, there is a demand increasingly pronounced with regard to the qualification and competence in such a study. Who has the power or primacy in the study of the person? Constantin Rădulescu Motru cancels the moral competence with regard to the study of the person, as well as the psychology competence and states that “the study of person can only be a study of philosophy.”[1] His exclusivism is justified, but not necessarily real. If we make a demarche from effect to cause, the man created being the effect and the cause being God, then the competence of a study of the idea of the person lies to the theologian. The theses above separate quite radically the manner of study between Theology, on the one hand, and Philosophy and other sciences, on the other hand. The approach of Philosophy and Physiology in the research of the Divine can be one-way. This reality stems
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
from the way it is seen apriori “the object” of the study. Philosophy and psychology investigate “a something”, or the idea of a person necessarily requires “a someone”. If God is “a something”, the performance brought by Philosophy and Psychology in this research will be more complex and more clearly defined, but if God is “a someone”, the performance of these two sciences in this research must turn in dialogue, in communion. Without this change there is no research or only a terminological one. On the other hand, in a case (Philosophy) and in the another (Theology), when we talk about God, we talk about transcendence, that is an inaccessible reality. Theologically, transcendence “is the difference between man and God. To avoid too simplistic distinction – human nature and heavenly nature – Theology prefers to call the divine one transcendent. Through this notion theologians try to make understandable the One Beyond Comprehension.” [2] From a philosophical point of view, defining transcendence is not necessarily different. In philosophy transcendence is seen as a reality “beyond and independent of the created world”[3] , that is, “the reality that is beyond the power of our knowledge” [4]. In this context of terminologies and definitions, the research of Theology and Philosophy can be the same thing in different terms and categories or can be two totally separate statements on the same terms and the same claims of knowledge. In the present research I will not segregate Theology from Philosophy or vice versa. In my capacity as a theologian and philosopher I will propose, on the basis of the above, the concept of transcendence as being the objective argument of the existence of the Personal God. I hope my discourse will convince that, at hypothetical level, the subjectivity is the origin of all objective realities. Consequently the transcendence originates the immanence and not the other way round.
- 82 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.7
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy II. God’s Transcendence Issues before
Adam’s Transgression
The atmosphere of Heaven, described by the Holy Scriptures, does not capture any tension or conflict between a transcendent God and a man located outside of such realities. On the contrary, the family friendly description of the context requires a different relationship, a state of normality, in which some beings, God and man coexist and speak with each other. “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof..” (Genesis 2:19) In this Edenic coexistence in the description of this “partnership”, the Holy Scripture captures the way in which man began to know God through His presence. The metaphysical, intuitive sense, which was in man through creation, was now discerned through the relationship. This metaphysical, this intuitive put into our being through creation, is called by St. Cyril of Alexandria “the law of knowing God, planted in us...” [5] Judging from the effect to cause, We can compare this knowledge put in us with the new born baby that feels his mother, he feels her interiority and finds thus protection and peace. In the same way, the complementarity of the knowing and the knowledge about God and of God is offered by relationship, dialogue. In these man finds that in relation with God and towards This he is not a stranger, but derives his origin from Him. “The soul is by its nature somewhat akin to God. He has a natural inclination towards the One that is related to.” [6] Just as a child, as he grows, begins to realize the ineffable and intuitive sense of kinship with the mother, the same the Man, with every moment lived in Paradise next to God, the transcendent God, develops his inner feeling and sees in God his origin and kinship. The edenic reality does not reveal such a pronounced
http://dialogo-conf.com
antagonism between God’s greatness and the smallness of man because “human nature was in harmony with God’s will. His mind was capable of understanding divine things.” [7] In these circumstances the distance between the transcendent reality and the reality of the human being was not so obvious nor so necessary. Man was in the presence of God, in a direct manner. This Edenic climate has remained, through Adam, in the human being. Man has in himself somehow ineffably and intuitively the idea of knowiung about God, without having seen and without having known in a personal way that God exists and that he belongs to Him. This metaphysical intellectual pattern is the great Gordian knot through which the subjectivity of transcendence should be taken as objectivity of God’s existence. “Cain and Abel although corrupted, had in them still working a natural and necessary law, and a spontaneous knowledge moves them to make them think about what is peerlessly higher and better than those ours, that is to God.” [8] The spontaneous knowledge on which speaks St. Cyril of Alexandria is our interiority, the knowing which remained in us, that we inherited. This spontaneous knowledge creates or gives birth to the philosophical thinking and philosophical approach as well as the theological fascination and theological commitment. But one day, this philosophical approach, this philosophical thought must become a dialogue with God’s Being. Otherwise God is impersonal, He is reduced to an inanimate reality or is a God in a coma. At the same time theological fascination and theological commitment should become obedience. The dialogue leads to fascination and imposes the requirements of Him with whom we have entered into dialogue. Lacking this obedience we subscribe to Lenin who said that religion is only the opium of the peoples.
- 83 -
Because of the distance between the
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y Eden event and us, the knowledge of God, at informational level, ie from father to son, has thinned greatly. We’ve remained with only what we feel, a feeling offered in the pattern of the being through creation and a feeling offered in the pattern of the being by descent. Under these circumstances the presence of transcendence eludes our existence and remains familiar through the uncreated energies of God. This thing is captured somehow by Vasile Răducă who writes down the following: “Kinship with a personal God has other connotations than kinship with an impersonal force. The ratio of kinship is established by God in the act of creation. The base of man’s kinship with God is the presence of divine energies in the human nature even at the moment of its creation.”[9] As the transcendence of God is more and more unreachable and distant, God dwelleth in us and in our search about Him with His immanence that is these uncreated energies through which His creation is supported. But, in a way that we do not understand in these uncreated energies, in this immanence of God is His transcendence. God does not separate Himself in transcendence and immanence. The immanence and transcendence do not consist of two halves of the same God. As mentioned above, in a way that we do not understand, God’s transcendence is in His immanence and His immanence is in His transcendence, but with clearly defined directions and purposes in the mystery of God’s beingness. Therefore, by God’s immanence man has a chance to be reunited with God, but it constitutes the reality which confirms that man was never separated from God completely. In these circumstances, transcendence is not the reality that eludes, as mentioned above, or at least not at all, but the transcendence is the reality that remains and generates the possibility of its perception in our reinforced helplessness and worthy of the uncreated energies of
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
God Who dwells in us. “The (human) person is called to unite through love the created nature with the uncreated nature”[10] Man towards God or man deified is, in these circumstances, an expression of God’s image restored, condition in which the antinomy of God’s transcendence and man’s ability to penetrate this reality should be regarded as divine success. In these circumstances, Vladimir Lossky noted: “God would be totally untouchable and would also share Himself real to the created beings without abolishing or reducing, in any degree, any of the terms of this antinomy.”[11] According to the above mentioned, the divine transcendence is not the terror of God’s existence, but is the mystery, is the gracious work due to which the human soul feels God daily, looks for Him daily and daily He answers. In the transcendence of the personal God is not found the recipe of parting from This, but the Mystery of belonging, of the union with Him. The nature of God and the uncreated energies “do not constitute a division of the being of God; they reflect the mysterious life of Him-Who-is-transcendent, tripersonal and present in His creation.” [12] This reality superior to our human thought and intuition declares the indestructibility of the Divine Being, the unity of this Being and the Trinitarian monotheism that, within the generated love, highlights the keystone of our salvation. III. God’s Transcendence Objectivity God’s Transcendence Objectivity results from its capacity as a Person. Paul Evdokimov convinces us that man himself, due to his person, which is nothing else but the personal reality, has a certain transcendent quality: “The human person escapes any rational definition and may be perceived only through an intuitive understanding or a mystical revelation…” [13] In these circumstances, the mystery of the human person is a distant replica of the divine person, replica which takes on a new identity through grace on the way to deification.
- 84 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.7
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy From this reality towards God, necessarily follows that God’s transcendence is more obvious, much more full of the mystery of existence and of incomprehensibility. But none of this will make it subjective. To talk about God’s transcendence means to discuss about the most objective reality. Here’s how one of the Psalms captures this thing: “Where shall I go from your spirit? or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend up into heaven, you are there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall your hand lead me, and your right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hid not from you; but the night shone as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to you.” (Psalms 139:7-12) God’s transcendence is the source of His omnipresence. Hidden in the mystery of His existence makes Him present alike in all His creation. Appointing this omnipresence as an immanent reality, does not alter the reality of His mistery and does not compromise our access to the reality of His existence. Naturally we expect that God’s immanence to be objective and the transcendence to be subjective. But the situation can be fundamentally regarded differently. Speaking about the immanence of God from a theological point of view, we talk about the way He makes Himself accessible to people. We talk about “God’s presence and activity in nature, in human nature and history” [14] , we talk about “the way God dwells in the created world or identifies in some way with it.” [15] When we speak of God’s immanence we do not talk about how God is nature or how God is His creation, but about the fact that He is in them, supporting their existence. From a philosophical perspective, talking about immanence implies something more. Philosophy declines the term
http://dialogo-conf.com
immanence, in general, to the pantheism, which complicates things a bit in the dialogue between Eastern and Protestant theology. In substance, the immanence from the Protestant theology represents the uncreated energies from the Eastern theology, but because the Protestant theology is influenced by rationalism and idealistic philosophy, the overlap in meaning between immanence and energy is no longer so complete. The Theology of uncreated energies concentrates more incisively the understanding of God’s Being near His person and transcendence, while the theology of the immanence makes it more elusive the idea of God’s person. Millard Erickson, Protestant theologian, even warns of the exaggerated accents of immanence noting: “The more the concept of immanence of God is more developed and emphasized, the more the perspective opens more towards pantheism, which is in contrast to theism. In other words, as the transcendence of God, His status independent of creation, is minimized, He becomes less personal, less someone with whom we can have a personal relationship.” [16] Due to these realities, we can rightly speak about the objectivity of apophatic knowledge to the detriment of the socalled rational knowledge. Experiencing God’s existence and the objectivity of this perception objectifies God’s transcendence, making Him known and closer to our searches. Apparently, our statement seems to be in conflict with at least one biblical passage. Saint Apostle Paul writes in the Epistle to the Romans the followings: “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not
- 85 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” (Romans 1:19-21) Usually this passage is used to show how God was revealed Himself to us in terms of what He has created. This is a classical passage about God’s immanence. However, in the reminded passage there is a very important expression sometimes neglected: in them. This expression is considering in a very clearly manner the human interiority, the spiritual ineffable of nature and human person. From the perspective of our study we will call this interiority the apofatism of our interiority, the path of inner union through grace, the road from the seen to the unseen, that is, through immanence to God’s transcendence. This in them, is the flagrant of divine transcendence objectivity that redefines immanence. God does not besiege Himself, but through His immanence transcends the being and the human nature. The objectivity of God’s transcendence makes me thus co-participant in His existence. “The living God of revelation, says Carl Henry, attested in the Bible, is not a prisoner of His greatness or of His revelation. Although God is revealed in His creation, He nevertheless ontologically transcends the universe as its Creator, and epistemologically He transcends man. His revelation in its entirety is a free and voluntary manifestation which depends on His transcendent will.” [17] In those circumstances both attributes of God, which are seen by prolonging the uncreated energies, as well as attributes of God, that are unseen and form the mystery of His nature, require the objectivity of the transcendence and of the person of God. When we migrate from ourselves towards the transcendence of God, we take hold of the unitive way, the way of our deification. When we migrate from ourselves towards the immanence of God we take hold of the explanatory way, a path that calls for increased attention. If this is neglected we open the possibility of subjectivity
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
led to extreme. The intentionality of the human being to secede from God allows a very relaxing subjectivism within God’s immanence. They can be misinterpreted as natural phenomena, as natural energies, as laws perfected from chaos, as results of apriori existing laws, as absolutization of the nature in which God is present in a complete and complex manner, etc. In other words, we declare that the nature and the cosmos are intimately the same thing as God. Accordingly, if the nature and the cosmos disappeared, God would disappear also. The Theology of the immanence and the Philosophy of the immanence allow this subjectivity. God’s transcendence can not be misinterpreted. It is the objectivity of the reality and of the theological discourse, even of the philosophical one. The only misinterpreted objectivity is transcendence, God’s independence towards everything created. This is also due to the fact that “… the very existence is of Him-that-is. And the existence is His, and not He belongs to existence. The existence is in Him, and He is not in existence. He-that-is is above being, above existence, the backing-cause of the being, of the nature. And not only those that exist, but the very existence of those who exist, is from the One Who preexists. For God is not in some way, but simply and undetermined, comprising in Himself from before the existence.” [18] Under these conditions God is more present through His absence than by His immanence. In a certain way it is exactly what Vladimir Lossky wrote: “… the divine energies in themselves are not relations between God and the created nature, but they get in touch with what is not God, they attract the world into existence by the will of God.” [19] We are talking about a reality brought into existence, not about a reality whose existence is the reality of the Existence. The reality brought into existence is perishable, while the Existence that brings something to life is eternal.
- 86 -
In conclusion the transcendence of
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.7
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy God should not be believed or proposed as a feature of God’s Being, by which He estranged from all created reality. Equally, it can not represent the in a coma of God’s Being which could allow a research outside God’s agreement and His reaction. “Knowing God by man is human initiative and success but not assault and conquest; because man gets to know the whole God only on the basis of Revelation, with “the material” and the help of God.” [20] Any research approach of God in His complexity will lead, sooner or later, to dialogue and communion. If this does not happen, we speak of the occultism, hallucination or philosophical religious creation; a kind of literature about the supernatural imagined. God’s transcendence outlines the Divine Being as a principle of existence through Himself, reality foreign to all creation. Being God’s nature, transcendence refuses the analogies of logical and judgment systems of human beings, denial that increases both the mystery and the objectivity of being. As we know about it and we can not understand it, so we will be in it, but we will not be transcendent. It’s about the dialectic between what we are and what we will be; where we are and where we will be: “Behold, what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knows us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it does not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that has this hope in him purifies himself, even as he is pure.” (1 John 3:1-3) III. Transcendence and Divine Reality as
Undichotomous Nature
When we speak of God’s transcendence, we talk implicitly about His nature and His person. In this respect the research approach
http://dialogo-conf.com
is not strictly theological and philosophical as sciences. The thesis and antithesis of our approach must not only withstand logical argument, rational and scientific, they must withstand an existential argument, that is the argument of over-physical presence of God in theological and philosophical discourse. Heideger wrote: “Theology means: Science about God. But God is by no means its research subject, as are animals for Zoology, for example. Theology is not speculative knowledge of God. We do not grasp the concept of Theology not even when we broaden the theme, saying: the object of Theology is the relation between God in general and man in general, and vice versa… Theology, on the contrary is itself grounded on faith…” [21] Namely on an apriori answer in which we recognize the presence of God in us and in our research expressed. That is why a study of theology should be “alive”. In these circumstances we are talking about something more than theological scientific knowledge. “If faith were only knowledge, it would be science; but it is an over-knowledge: a relevant and accepted knowledge.” [22] That is an offer and receipt of the offer. God offers something about Himself and man accepts the offer of God through faith. In these circumstances the theological research exceeds the idea of science and becomes existence. It is a phenomenon of assimilation, Theology assimilates its scientific character in its existential character. Theology is the environment where God exists in an order of familiarity. The approach of theological expression is in fact His familiarity with us. “If a man loves Me, he will keep My words: and My Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him...” (John 14:23) To research transcendence is not a matter of closeness to God through various theological or philosophical schools of thought, but to research transcendence is a matter of “gathering” in which participates the One of whom I wish to learn, to know
- 87 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y and to accept His presence. A gathering in which the foundations of familiarity between me and God are laid, familiarity that will increase the communion between me and God and my sanctification. We see God’s transcendence and nature thus, in this part of our study, as a reality in which we participate. We try to put a liturgical sense to this part of the study, so that by what we do to not talk about transcendence and nature, but to manifest ourselves in communion with transcendence and divine nature, in a way that to consent the gracious presence of God in our scientific manifestation. Transcendence is common to the Holy Trinity as Its nature or more. The divine nature finds its infinity in its transcendence. Transcendence is not subject to addition, not even the object of the theological discourse, in the way of God’s love and mercy. In such a case transcendence would be a immanence, or uncreated energy. In reality, transcendence characterizes God and finds its substance in what God says: “I am that I am.” (Exodus 3:14), it is a reality intrinsic to God and foreign to any other being or thing. But the nature of God is communional. The depth and the unfathomable of transcendence expands, to the infinity, the mystery and the incomprehensibility precisely in the reality of the Trinitarian communion. “In the Persons of the Holy Trinity, however, is seen a continuous and infinite community, that is a communion uninterrupted by any discontinuity and infinite in the content communicated by the three Persons.” [23] In other words, the unity of the divine nature transcends itself through transcendence in the interpersonal communion of the Trinity. Formulated in a very frankly manner, the communional reality of the Trinity is precisely Its transcendence. Transcendence is the feast of meeting the Trinity and the feast of our community
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
with God. The Divine Nature is captured in the persons of the Holy Trinity through Its transcendence and Its transcending. When God transcends His creation, in general, declares His support for its existence, but when He transcends His believers, particularly, He declares His communion with them. When God transcends His Church, He claims it in His communional intimacy. Here He confirms its identity by grace, extends the glorified body of Christ toward the earth, rests the Holy Spirit upon it and declares in advance its raising in heaven in the power of the Father. This is why God’s transcendence must be seen as the liturgy of His Trinitarian existence, because it is the Divine super-physical reality, through which God gives life to the universal Liturgy. “Let every thing that has breath praise the Lord. Praise you the Lord!” (Psalms 150:6) When we talk about transcendence and nature we can not talk dichotomously. Nature-transcendence is a divine characteristic, a divine property declaring the uniqueness, the universality and timelessness of God. Even at the level of discourse we should avoid the dichotomy between nature and transcendence. God is not more or less something, God is. Speaking about the oneness of God, Jaques Bossuet makes a limited observation: “Everything that is not He-that-is through His essence and by nature, is not and will not be eternal, because the only He-that-is in Himself gives the being. If we had more than one God, then they would be an infinity. If they were an infinity, He would not be at all.” [24] This indestructibility of the Divine Being oneness is conceived and born exactly by the naturetranscendence monolithism. Nature and transcendence constitute an unique and an indestructible, just like it is by one the glass and its own transparency. This unique beyond nature and alien to the nature of everything that is created is the objectivity of God’s Being, the objectivity of His existence and the objectivity of His Tri-Oneness.
- 88 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.7
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy The undichotomous naturetranscendence of God constitutes the inner greatness of the Divine Being. To intuit where It is in relation to our judgments, we must make a spiritual exercise which is proposed to us by St. Basil the Great: “Meditate on something big, add much more to what you have meditated and to this much more add a more and be decorous that your thought will never be able to achieve the things that are infinite.” [25] Here lies the subject of our research, more correctly said the subject of living our communion with God. To descend the theological discourse from this standard involves a intellectualized risk, implies the subordination of the infinite to the finite and involves giving finality to the infinite. No need for anyone to deny a breakthrough because it does not fit the canons “of the science”. Science is actually a registry where are placed the discoveries. A science that can not place in its registry the discovery of God, loses this quality by default. It will be henceforth a reality “falsely so called.” (1 Timothy 6:20) CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, the personal and transcendent presence of God in the Garden of Eden must not be subordinated or altered by what was understood later, but what was later understood must be subordinated and redefined by reference to the revelation about the presence of God in the Garden of Eden. Thanks to the experience which our proto-parents had in there, in our ineffable soul exist apriori know and feel, without any prior a seen and a known. The earnest of the Holy Spirit within us makes it more concrete the existence of God in His transcendence than in His immanence. He is that He is, not the reality or realities through which He makes Himself known to us. Consequently the objective argument of the personal God is precisely His mystery, His inaccessibility. This “wall”
http://dialogo-conf.com
of God’s way of being is proof that He exists and that he is different from us and all His creation. In the phrase transcendence and nature, as God’s way of being, we enforce in the linguistic and real sense the understanding and the development of the objectivity of the Trinitarian existence. Transcending the Divine own nature, that is the miracle of the mystery of God’s self, is exactly the communion and the communality between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is the demarche of wondering and cherishing that captures the human being on the way to its fellowship with the divine nature. “To the extent that God reveals Himself, in His fullness in the incarnate Son, in the lifegiving power of the Holy Spirit and, for the world, as a loving Father, the theological and spiritual glance rises to the contemplation of the Trinitarian Being, and the last word of man is the one that “the Theologian” found out within the bosom of Jesus Himself… “God is love” (1 John 4:8-16).” Along with this keystone, through which God rises in exactly our need for being, confirms; the ultimate thought and the limit about the reality of being Somebody. REFERENCES [1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
- 89 -
Constantin Rădulescu Motru, Personalismul Energetic și alte scrieri (Energetic Personalism and Other Writings), Eminescu Publishing, 1984, Bucharest, p. 534. Tertulian Langa, Dicționar teologic creștin din perspectiva ecumenismului catolic (Christian Theological Dictionary from a Catholic Ecumenism Perspective), Dacia Publishing, 1997, Cluj-Napoca, p. 267. Antony Flew, Dicționar de filozofie și logică (Dictionary of Philosophy and Logic), Humanitas Publishing, 1996, Bucharest, p. 344. Didier Julia, Dicționar de filosofie (Dictionary of Philosophy), Univers enciclopedic Publishing, 1996, Bucharest, p. 346. St. Cyril of Alexandria, Scrieri partea a
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y doua (Writings. Second Part), Publishing House of the Mission and Bible Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, 1992, Bucharest, p. 21. [6] Vasile Răducă, Antropologia Sfântului Grigore de Nyssa (The Anthropology of St. Gregory of Nyssa), Publishing House of the Mission and Bible Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, 1996, Bucharest, p. 112. [7] Ellen G. White, Patriarhi și profeți (Patriarchs and Prophets), Viață și Sănătate Publishing House, 2006, Bucharest, p. 32. [8] St. Cyril of Alexandria, Scrieri partea a doua (Writings. Second Part), pp. 21-22. [9] Vasile Răducă, Antropologia Sfântului Grigore de Nyssa (The Anthropology of St. Gregory of Nyssa), p. 113. [10] Paul Evdokimov, Cunoașterea lui Dumnezeu (La Connaissance de Dieu selon la Tradition orientale, L’enseignement patristique, liturgique et iconographique), Cristiana Publishing, 1995, Bucharest, p. 33. [11] Vladimir Lossky, Teologia mistică a Bisericii de Răsărit (Essai sur la theologie mystique de l’Eglise d’Orient), Anastasia Publishing, Bucharest, p. 98. [12] John Meyendorff, Teologia bizantină (Byzantine Theology), Publishing House of the Mission and Bible Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, 1996, Bucharest, p. 251. [13] Paul Evdokimov, Cunoașterea lui Dumnezeu (La Connaissance de Dieu selon la Tradition orientale, L’enseignement patristique, liturgique et iconographique), 33 [14] Millard J. Erickson, Teologie creștină (Christian Theology), vol. I, Cartea Creștină Publishing, 1998, Oradea, p. 328. [15] Antony Flew, Dicționar de filozofie și logică (Dictionary of Philosophy and Logic), p. 177. [16] Millard J. Erickson, Teologie creștină (Christian Theology), vol. I, p. 329. [17] Carl F. H. Henry, Dumnezeu revelație și autoritate (God, Revelation and Authority), volume 2, Cartea Creștină Publishing, 1991, Oradea, p. 57. [18] Dumitru Stăniloae, Teologia dogmatică ortodoxă (The Experience of God: Orthodox Dogmatic Theology), volume I, Publishing
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
House of the Mission and Bible Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, 1996, Bucharest, pp. 109-110. [19] Vladimir Lossky, Teologia mistică a Bisericii de Răsărit (Essai sur la theologie mystique de l’Eglise d’Orient), Anastasia Publishing, Bucharest, p. 116. [20] George Remete, Dogmatica ortodoxă (Orthodox Dogmatics), Reîntregirea Publishing, 2007, Alba Iulia, p.121. [21] Martin Heidegger, Repere pe drumul gândirii (Discourse on Thinking), Politică Publishing, 1988, Bucharest, pp. 416-418. [22] Tertulian Langa, Dicționar teologic creștin din perspectiva ecumenismului catolic (Christian Theological Dictionary from a Catholic Ecumenism Perspective), p. 267. [23] Dumitru Stăniloae, Sfânta Treime sau la început a fost iubirea, Publishing House of the Mission and Bible Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, 1993, Bucharest, p. 29. [24] Jaques Bénigne Bossuet, Opere II – Tratate filosofice (Works II – Philosophical Treatises), Dacia Publishing, 2000, Cluj-Napoca, p. 55. [25] Saint Basil the Great, Scrieri dogmatice și exegetice (Dogmatical and Exegetical Writings), Basilica Publishing of the Romanian Patriarchate, 2011, Bucharest, p. 298. [26] Boris Bobrinskoy, Taina Preasfintei Treimi (Le Mystère de la Trinité), Publishing House of the Mission and Bible Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, 2005, Bucharest, p. 8.
Bibliography [1] Basil the Great, Saint. Scrieri dogmatice și exegetice (Dogmatical and Exegetical Writings). Bucharest: Basilica Publishing House of the Romanian Patriarchate, 2011. [2] Bobrinskoy, Boris. Taina Preasfintei Treimi (Original title – Le Mystère de la Trinité). Bucharest: Publishing House of the Mission and Bible Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, 2005.
- 90 -
[3] Bossuet Bénigne, Jaques. Opere II
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.7
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy – Tratate filosofice (Works II – Philosophical Treatises). Cluj-Napoca: Dacia Publishing, 2000.
Theology). Bucharest: Publishing House of the Mission and Bible Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, 1996.
[4] Cyril of Alexandria, Saint. Scrieri partea a doua (Writings. Second Part). Bucharest: Publishing House of the Mission and Bible Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, 1992.
[14] Motru, Constantin, Rădulescu. Personalismul Energetic și alte scrieri (Energetic Personalism and Other Writings). Bucharest: Eminescu Publishing, 1984.
[5] Didier, Julia. Dicționar de filosofie (Dictionary of Philosophy). Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic Publishing, 1996. [6] Erickson, Millard J. Teologie creștină (Christian Theolohgy), vol. I. Oradea: Cartea Creștină Publishing, 1998. [7] Evdokimov, Paul. Cunoașterea lui Dumnezeu (Original title – La Connaissance de Dieu selon la Tradition orientale, L’enseignement patristique, liturgique et iconographique). Bucharest: Cristiana Publishing, 1995. [8] Flew, Antony. Dicționar de filozofie și logică (Dictionary of Philosophy and Logic). Bucharest: Humanitas Publishing, 1996. [9] Heidegger, Martin. Repere pe drumul gândirii (Discourse on Thinking). Bucharest: Politică Publishing, 1988. [10] Henry, F. H. Carl. Dumnezeu revelație și autoritate (Original title – God, Revelation and Authority), volume II. Oradea: Cartea Creștină Publishing, 1991. [11] Langa, Tertulian. Dicționar teologic creștin din perspectiva ecumenismului catolic (Christian Theological Dictionary from a Catholic Ecumenism Perspective). Cluj-Napoca: Dacia Publishing, 1997.
[15] Răducă, Vasile. Antropologia Sfântului Grigore de Nyssa (The Anthropology of St. Gregory of Nyssa). Bucharest: Publishing House of the Mission and Bible Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, 1996. [16] Remete, George. Dogmatica ortodoxă (Orthodox Dogmatics). Alba Iulia: Reîntregirea Publishing, 2007. [17] Stăniloae, Dumitru. Teologia dogmatică ortodoxă (Translated into English as The Experience of God: Orthodox Dogmatic Theology), vol. I. Bucharest: Publishing House of the Mission and Bible Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, 1996. [18] Stăniloae, Dumitru. Sfânta Treime sau la început a fost iubirea (The Holy Trinity or in the Beginning Was Love). Bucharest: Publishing House of the Mission and Bible Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, 1993. [19] White, G., Ellen. Patriarhi și profeți (Patriarchs and Prophets). Bucharest: Viață și Sănătate Publishing House, 2006.
[12] Lossky, Vladimir. Teologia mistică a Bisericii de Răsărit (Original title – Essai sur la theologie mystique de l’Eglise d’Orient). Bucharest: Anastasia Publishing, 1998. [13] Meyendorff, bizantină (Original
John. title –
http://dialogo-conf.com
Teologia Byzantine
- 91 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
DIALOGO
2.2; 92-99 (2015)
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.8 Constanta, ROMANIA - 2016, March 3
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy
Transcendence and Revelation: from Phenomenology to Theology Nicolae Turcan, PhD, ThD Faculty of Orthodox Theology Babes-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca, Romania nicolaeturcan@gmail.com
Abstract: Thinking on transcendence falls into a paradox: if transcendence is a radical one, we cannot speak about it; if we speak about it, it is no longer radical. The aim of this paper is to overcome this paradox and to analyze the concept of transcendence considering (1) the dynamic of self-transcending that is natural to man, (2) the limit beyond which one can speak about transcendence, and (3) the phenomena of mystery whereby the transcendence appears. Inasmuch as transcendence does not escape from the suspicion that the movement of selftranscending postulates it according to its desires and reaches Kantian “transcendental appearance,” this text tries to delineate the possible phenomenon of the maximum manifestation of transcendence in this world: how could transcendence give itself? The answer engages the revelation, namely, transcendence’s intention of donating itself, the presence of paradox, and the solution of mediation between transcendence and immanence by transcendence itself. Each of these possible solutions has examples in Christian Orthodox theology. Keywords: transcendence, self-transcending,
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
detranscendence, revelation, paradox, mediation, Eastern Christian Orthodox Tradition, saturated phenomenon, Jean-Luc Marion, Christian dogmata I. Transcendence and Its Multiple
Concepts
A recurring term in the history of philosophy, often appearing under different names[1] , transcendence seems so rich in meanings and interpretations that it falls into a paradox, that which should not be known or spoken about—because it belongs to an absolute beyond. The paradox follows: if transcendence is a radical one, we cannot speak about it; if we speak about it, it is no longer radical, losing its purity. [2] Forgotten and rediscovered, present in every limit and in every overcoming, real or imagined, having the image of the infinity, of the Absolute, of the unknown, of mystery, of Being, of the one, of the ineffable, or of God, transcendence enriched the philosophical and religious literature with an abundance of denotations. The
- 92 -
eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928 printISSN: 2457-9297, ISSN-L 2392-9928 ISBN 978-80-554-1208-5
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.8
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy supereminence of the transcendence often justifies the existence of this world, as is the case in metaphysics and religion. Plato’s Ideas, Aristotle’s Being, the logos of the Stoics, Plotin’s One, St Thomas Aquinas’ God as Being, Kant’s noumenon, Spinoza’s one and only substance, Hegel’s absolute spirit, etc.—all these are just a few of the philosophical meanings of transcendence. Transcendence indwells in the disciplines of philosophy, appearing as cosmological transcendence, epistemic transcendence, and ethical transcendence.[3] There are also religious meanings enriching the picture— from Hindu Brahman, Buddhist Nirvana, Lao Tze and Zhuang Zi’s Dao to gods of ancient religions, Mohamed’s Allah, the God of the Old and New Testament, angels, paradise, hell, etc. Everything becomes so luxuriant that, conceptually speaking, we should search beyond transcendence to find something worthy of this name. From metaphysics to religion and from one tradition to another, transcendence has been defined so differently that one can even speak about multiple transcendences. We could ask ourselves rhetorically: is it true that radical transcendence is the common genre of all these? Probably not. This paper does not choose from the beginning between the different and often contradictory meanings of transcendence present in heterogeneous philosophical and religious traditions, and it does not decide on which side can one find more transcendence[4] —albeit we will finally make a theological suggestion that comes from the choice of faith, not from a proven objectivity; but we will try to make a phenomenological analysis of the concept of transcendence and, at the same time, to question the openings towards theology, especially towards Christian Orthodox theology. The main questions are: To what extent does the thinking of transcendence fall into illusion, postulating imaginatively on
http://dialogo-conf.com
a realm where it cannot go, a realm that Wittgenstein insisted on not being spoken about?[5] How is it possible to speak about transcendence in the phenomenology of givenness and in theology? How could one delineate a possible phenomenon of transcendence that remains radically transcendent and concurrently manifests itself? What analogous examples in the Orthodox theology could justify such a description of the possibility of the maximum revelation of transcendence? II. Self-Transcending, Detranscendence,
and Non-Transcendence
The impasse appears even from the attempt to apply the transcendentalphenomenological reduction (epoché) [6] to transcendence itself, because no “phenomenon of transcendence” remains. While, for Kant, the thing-in-itself is not given in any possible experience, for Husserl, transcendence is beyond the phenomenon, which is why he defines the phenomenological reduction by contrasting it with the idea of transcendence.[7] To remain in the immanent realm of the intentionality of conscience, Husserl practices a methodological refusal of the transcendent that cannot be known, which is why we should never take it into consideratioin.[8] The conclusion is eloquent: it is understandable how one might know the immanence, but how to know the transcendence remains incomprehensible.[9] Transcendence does not appear as a phenomenon after the Husserlian reduction.[10] Or, at the most, it appears only as a phenomenon immanent to intentional conscience, as an “immanent transcendence.”[11] Since the phenomena obtained after the reduction to objectivity refuse the radical transcendence that we are looking for, we need to abandon them as a closed ways and return to the intentionality of the cogito, to
- 93 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y the noetic content, not the noematic one, as presented in Husserl’s terminology. How is our intentionality, our cogito, when it looks at the concept of transcendence? Man’s nature is not only to aspire to know, as Aristotle asserts at the beginning of his Metaphysics[12] , but it also has the same movement in many other acts for which intentionality is only a possible model. Avid for becoming and for the possible, defining his essence only through his existence (Sartre), choosing to become “into Being” (Constantin Noica) or into nothing, man has a natural movement of self-transcending. This is an essential quality that transforms him into an “animal transcendens”[13] and even becomes a condition for philosophy and theology.[14] As self-transcending purely exceeds the rigors imposed by possible experience, the discourse on transcendence is mainly the result of that elevation. Transcendence seems to be the result of the self-transcending movement, being continuously jeopardized by the danger of the imagination and illusion along with the most audacious speculations of reason. [15] Looking for radical transcendence, the dynamic of self-transcending just posits, but it cannot truly demonstrate. And when the reason believes to have made a demonstration—like metaphysics does— it reduces transcendence to an idol of the mind, one that, in the end, reveals the ontotheological less of transcendence, not the more of it. But is failure not the consequence of using intention where it is impossible, i.e. for knowing radical transcendence itself? Remaining for now to the same selftranscending movement, namely to the level of noetic analysis, could we obtain a better result when our cogito does not head for the radical transcendence itself—in fact, only a void concept—but for the phenomena that promise to give indications about transcendence? Maybe when intentionality points to the phenomena obtained after
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
the transcendental-phenomenological reduction and despite their objective opacity, self-transcending could say more about transcendence than if it were pointing to it directly. How does the self-transcending movement appear when it directed towards the phenomena of this world? Their non-possession (when selftranscending is situated at the level of desire) and their unknowability (when the self-transcending is present at the level of epistemology) both offer a relative transcendence that we can name as detranscendence: this transcendence disappears if the desire is satisfied or the cognition is gained, but the movement of self-transcending remains. Self-transcending does not vanish in detranscendence; its thirst continues to exist, though it aims at the phenomenal world or beyond that world. It escapes even from the Heideggerian game of authenticity and inauthenticity, which does not affect it. It is like being energized by a deep inauthenticity that must be corrected. Self-transcending does not imply the authenticity of Dasein any more than a moment that must be surpassed. Every transgression stresses the detranscendence of authenticity itself. The authentic Dasein is not enough for self-transcending, because every authenticity needs more authenticity in a movement that once more makes the detranscendence visible. Through its accomplishments, detranscendence cannot annihilate selftranscending, albeit it often promises to do so. It is like a human being suffered from a disease for which there is no cure and it finally ends with death. Death seems to be the solution for both transcendence and detranscendence; death appears in the end as blind, closed, impenetrable and as transcendence itself.[16] But it is clear that self-transcending did not aim at this type of transcendence, so this is a defeat and a dilemma for its movement.
- 94 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.8
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy However, we could formulate the idea that self-transcending is the authentic transcendence and this result is all we acquire outside metaphysics. Transcendence hereby appears as the projection created by natural movement of self-transcending and according to what it overcomes—subject, sensible world, beings or Being—it can be described in different manners, without escaping Feuerbach’s accusation: theology is anthropology, transcendence is human projection. As for metaphysics, it was already said that it reduces transcendence to a human dimension, because of his claim to conceptualize the inconceivable.[17] The impasse of our meditation remains. What seemed to advance to transcendence ends either in detranscendence or in selftranscending. Blaga’s “transcendent censorship” is imposed to us even there is no Great Anonymous.[18] The answers of self-transcending are the delusive projection, detranscendence, death, or the impossible. The transcendent and the impossible belongs to each other. III. Phenomena of Mystery
There are also phenomena that do not become detranscendence. Whenever the desire is not satisfied and the knowledge does not come to fruition, transcendence appears as an impossible target and as an unknown, such as Lucian Blaga’s minusknowledge[19] or Jean-Luc Marion’s negative certainties.[20] The phenomenon of overcoming promises to understand transcendence as exceeding limits of knowledge. We turn our phenomenological gaze to noemata, the content of intentional conscience. We must surpass the Husserlian reduction to objectivity by the Marion’s reduction to givenness. According to him, what gives itself is much more than what appears.[21] The traits of transcendence become visible, even
http://dialogo-conf.com
in a negative way, from what they surpass. [22] The transcendent is to be defined by the immanent, the overtaking is related to the limits, and the limits delimit the field beyond one could speak about transcendence. Self-transcending transforms delimitation into unlimitedness, overcoming, excess, and exceedance. Since we do not comprehend the limit that describes a reality menaced by detranscendence— namely the transcendence which becomes an ordinary phenomenon of immanence— but we search for the highest limit, we could conclude that this is the wanted transcendence. It appears as the image of the impossible and of the unknowable and emerges in the phenomena of mystery. But, the movement of selftranscending—the natural capability of man (i.e. Kant’s “transcendental illusion”) to postulate transcendences where there is nothing but unknown—annihilates the certitude of transcendence. Finally, the limit does not tell more than a negative story of unlimitedness and transcendence does not escape from the accusation of being just an illusive projection of our desires or of our speculative reason. If transcendence avoids these accusations (how would it?), it appears as a pure unknowability, as a darkness that has nothing to say or that speaks about nothingness.[23] Should this false apparition be the radical wanted transcendence? Who could guarantee that this void space does not hide a transcendence which is the fruit of the projective desires of self-transcending or the projection of self-transcending itself, and instead of detranscendence we actually meet only a non-transcendence? But, how could we understand the radical transcendence other than as nontranscendence? And how could we make the distinction between the two? It seems for the moment that we should accept this absolute limit. Transcendence is nothing else but a beyond limits movement, and it is
- 95 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y a synonym of non-transcendence. Because transcendence has a void concept, the dynamic of self-transcending accuses both transcendence and non-transcendence to be nihilism and anthropological projection. Transcendence is nihil, impossible and non-transcendence projected by the selftranscending movement beyond the highest limits. Feuerbach’s thesis remains ineluctable. IV. Revelation, Paradox, and Immediate
Mediation
One could raise an objection here: the impasse results from the fact that we obtained at the end what we inserted in our meditation at the beginning, so there is no wonder that our run after pure and radical transcendence met the nothing. It is like in Hegel’s logics where the most indeterminate concepts, Being and Nothing, vanish dialectically one into the other because of their purity, generality, and indetermination.[24] If the phenomenon of radical transcendence is impossible and the movement of self-transcending, much like the analysis of the phenomenon of limit, finally advance to detranscendence and nothingness, wouldn’t it be a better if we looked at the phenomena that show transcendence to a certain extent, even if it is insufficient? We arrived at a point where we to contradict ourselves by affirming that transcendence is a phenomenon, because we have already stated that this is impossible: once manifested, transcendence looses its radicalism. From the point of view of possibility, we could say that if transcendence could be known, this should be the result of its initiative to donate itself to us. We follow this way which does not engage self-transcending—that led to nothing—, but considers the possibility of the givenness of transcendence itself, namely, revelation.[25]
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
The history of philosophy and the history of religion knows a wide field of phenomena pretending to reveal transcendence: metaphysical concepts, onto-theological concepts, hierophanies, cratophanies etc. There is no place for analyzes of such phenomena, so we delineate further only the phenomenon of the possibility of a maximum revelation of the transcendence. We will give examples from Christian Revelation and especially from the Eastern Christian Tradition. How does the possibility of manifestation of radical transcendence look like? We will give three answers. Firstly, we have already discussed the initiative of transcendence itself, without which we would come to agnosticism. The best model is Jean-Luc Marion’s saturated phenomenon[26] , to which we should append this dimension of the initiative. This is the special case when the intuition overflows the concept and the phenomenon appears from itself and by itself (a good example of such a phenomenon is the astonishment of an event). Nonetheless, saturated phenomena are not metaphysical anymore, because they have no a priori and offers themselves as revelations to the man who receives himself from this meeting. Instead of the modern subject we have here the gifted one (adonné), the one who receives the givenness. For example, the Christian Revelation is such a saturated phenomenon by which God reveals Himself and overwhelms every human concept, every transcendental table of categories. In the words of the Bible: “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (I John 4:10); “We love him because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19).[27] The gifted one does not impose his conditions of possibility to the saturated phenomenon of Revelation because this phenomenon overwhelms all a priori conditions. According to Marion, the subject seems to put nothing from himself as it is not
- 96 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.8
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy transcendentally constituted. Despite this opinion, religious traditions offer an image where the homo religiosus has an intensive preparation to become capable of religious experience. We propose a solution to this problem: the ascetic practices and preparation are not a development of the a priori conditions, but an annihilation of that transcendental by which the human intellect knows the world. Askesis does not build transcendental conditions of possibility, but suspends any a priori and waits for the gift and the grace of God that will become a veritable “condition of possibility” for the religious experience. The gifted one sacrifices himself from a position that is irrelevant compared to the gift received, and he receives the grace, id est some condition for meeting God. This is a “transcendental” received as a gift, which does not belong to him and which is more a posteriori than a priori. This “transcendental” is not at one’s disposal because it is not an idol. This impossibility to dispose of it assures that grace will never become an a priori of a subject. In theological words, deification (theosis) teaches us that God always works freely and that man should answer with the self-renouncing, ascetic practices, prayers, humility. God is infinite compared to man, so the work of man should become prayer. Secondly, we should speak about an essential paradox: transcendence must remain radical to keep its dignity and, at the same time, it must appear. Even as visible, the invisible of transcendence should stay invisible. The Christian Revelation is such a model of understanding of transcendence, because there is no movement of selftranscending which could create by projection metaphysical transcendence, but God reveals himself because of his great love. Phenomenology gives way to theology and transcendence gives way to the God of Revelation. The examples come from the Christian dogmata among which
http://dialogo-conf.com
there are many antinomies[28] : God is one in his nature and he is three Persons; Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, having two natures in one person; the Virgin Mary, theotokos, mother of God, etc. In a phenomenal visibility of history, God remains God, in a movement that does not reduce his radical transcendence of his nature that remains eternally unknown, according to the whole Eastern Orthodox Tradition. Thirdly, we should resolve the problem of mediation: how is it possible to mediate between the radical transcendence of loving God and immanence itself? Paradoxically enough, the maximum possibility of this mediation is to be realized by transcendence itself. Only transcendence can offer a veritable mediation, made by itself, according to the movement of love. There are also some theological examples: Son of God becomes a man coming to a maximum proximity to human beings; in Eucharist, Christ offers himself without withdrawal and without idolatry; according to St Gregory Palamas, the grace of the Holy Spirit is a divine uncreated energy, God himself in his loving manifestation. Indeed, if God’s grace is only a created energy, disconnected from God, the “transcendental” received as a gift would not be God himself, and consequently, the gifted one would remain only a modern subject, even rebuilt. On the contrary, if grace is uncreated energy— God himself in his movement towards the creation, simultaneously immanent and transcendent—the phenomenality of God is abundant love. The mediation is realized by God himself in that Revelation, and hereby St Paul’s words become intelligible: „Likewise, the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered” (Romans 8:26); “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live;
- 97 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Galatians, 2:20). We should stress that, in all these theological examples, the possibility of the experience of God does not void Him of transcendence. On the contrary, it offers more transcendence. The Eastern Orthodox Tradition affirms in unanimity the unknowability of God’s nature and the abundance of the grace of Holy Spirit, in a both real and apophatic experience. Theological conclusion In this way, transcendence remains neither a simple concept, nor a natural movement of epistemic self-transcending, nor does it become detranscendence after having its experience, nor does it end in metaphysical conceptualizations or in nontranscendence or nothingness, and nor does it leave the mystery in a non-revealed form that might be suspected of the transcendentalism of self-transcending and, finally, suspected of onto-theology. To speak with conviction about transcendence and avoid both the conceptual idolatry of metaphysics and the detranscendence of the self-transcending movement, we need theology; namely, the Revelation of transcendence itself. Since there is no a discourse of the revelation of a concept, but of a personal God who wants the communion of love, only the theological discourse can speak more accurately about transcendent God [29] , surpassing the phenomenological possibility. Theology does not diminish the radical transcendence present in the idea of the unknowability of the nature of God and knows by unknowing (because God offers himself in Incarnation, grace, sacraments), as the apophaticism of St Dionysius the Areopagite has already stressed. And if our phenomenological
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
meditation was an impasse, from a theological point of view, this is an opening. Man is not called to less than impossible because all are possible for God (Matthew 19, 26). And God does not reveal himself to the man by conceptual mediation but by the uncreated grace of the Holy Spirit, who fulfills this immanent world without losing his radical transcendence. If the mediation between the radical transcendence of God and the immanence of this world is only a mundane phenomenon, we have just a philosophical understanding without participation, reducible to our transcendental construction, to metaphysics, or, eventually, to a teaching among other teachings. There is only a solution for this mediation: the Transcendent itself should come down to us, as in the Incarnation of Christ, to make possible the “immediate mediation” of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Thus, both the discourse of transcendence and the participation in it (theosis) become possible. References [1]
[2] [3]
[4]
[5]
- 98 -
Having a Latin origin, the term „transcendence” does not exist in the vocabulary of ancient Greek philosophy, although the idea of overcoming can be found here. For a short philological and philosophical history of this term, see Gabriel Chindea, Paradoxul transcendenței la Aristotel și Plotin. București: Humanitas, 2008, 211–220. Ibid., 9. Merold Westphal, Transcendence and Self-Transcendence: On God and the Soul Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004, 11. This expression belongs to Derrida, see John D. Caputo and Michael J. Scanlon, Transcendence and Beyond: A Postmodern Inquiry. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2007, 2. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicus, trans. Mircea Dumitru and Mircea Flonta. București: Humanitas, 2001,7.
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.8
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy Edmund Husserl, Meditații carteziene, trans. Aurelian Crăiuțu. București: Humanitas, 1994, 51. [7] See Edmund Husserl, Ideea de fenomenologie și alte scrieri filosofice, trans. Alexandru Boboc. Cluj-Napoca: Grinta, 2002, 24. [8] Ibid., 57. [9] Ibid., 88. [10] Although this assertion does not disqualify God’s manifestation, see Jean-Yves Lacoste, Fenomenalitatea lui Dumnezeu, trans. MariaCornelia Ică jr. Sibiu: Deisis, 2011, 6. [11] Chindea, Paradoxul transcendenței la Aristotel și Plotin, 213. [12] Aristotel, Metafizica, 980 a, trans. Șt Bezdechi (București: IRI, 1996). [13] Meerten B. Ter Borg, “Transcendence and Religion,” Implicit Religion 11 (November 2008): 232, doi:10.1558/imre.v11i3.229. [14] See Alexandru Surdu, Gândirea speculativă: coordonate istorico-sistematice. București: Paideia, 2001, 142. [15] Alexandru Surdu, Filosofia pentadică, 2nd ed., vol. 1, Problema transcendenței. București: Ed. Herald – Ed. Academiei Române, 2012, 38. [6]
Bibliography [1] [2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
Aristotel. Metafizica. Translated by Șt Bezdechi. București: IRI, 1996. Blaga, Lucian. “Cunoașterea luciferică.” In Trilogia cunoașterii, 305–436. Opere 8. București: Minerva, 1983. ———. “Eonul Dogmatic.” In Trilogia cunoașterii, 195–304. Opere 8. București: Minerva, 1983. Caputo, John D., and Michael J. Scanlon. Transcendence and Beyond: A Postmodern Inquiry. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2007. Chindea, Gabriel. Paradoxul transcendenței la Aristotel și Plotin. București: Humanitas, 2008. Hegel, G.W.F. Știința logicii. Translated by D.D. Roșca. București: Ed. Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, 1966. Husserl, Edmund. Ideea de fenomenologie și alte scrieri filosofice. Translated by Alexandru
http://dialogo-conf.com
Boboc. Cluj-Napoca: Grinta, 2002. ———. Meditații carteziene. Translated by Aurelian Crăiuțu. Paradigme. București: Humanitas, 1994. [9] Lacoste, Jean-Yves. Fenomenalitatea lui Dumnezeu. Translated by Maria-Cornelia Ică jr. Sibiu: Deisis, 2011. [10] Levinas, Emmanuel. Totalitate și infinit: eseu despre exterioritate. Translated by Marius Lazurca. Afterword by Virgil Ciomoș. Iași: Polirom, 1999. [11] Marion, Jean-Luc. Certitudini Negative. Translated by Maria-Cornelia Ică jr. Sibiu: Deisis, 2013. [12] ———. “Fenomenul saturat.” In Fenomenologie și teologie, by Jean-Louis Chrétien, Michel Henry, Jean-Luc Marion, and Paul Ricœur, 77–126. Translated by Nicolae Ionel. Iași: Polirom, 1996. [13] ———. Réduction et donation. Recherches sur Husserl, Heidegger et la phénoménologie. Paris: PUF, 1989. [14] Remete, George. Ființa și credința. Vol. 1, Ideea de ființă. București: Ed. Academiei Române, 2012. [15] ———. Ființa și credința. Vol. 2, Persoana. București: Paideia, 2012. [16] Surdu, Alexandru. Filosofia pentadică. 2nd ed. Vol. 1, Problema transcendenței. București: Ed. Herald – Ed. Academiei Române, 2012. [17] ———. Gândirea speculativă: coordonate istorico-sistematice. București: Paideia, 2001. [18] Ter Borg, Meerten B. “Transcendence and Religion.” Implicit Religion 11 (November 2008): 229–38. doi:10.1558/imre.v11i3.229. [19] The Holy Bible, King James Version. Cambridge Edition: 1769. King James Bible Online, 2016. http://www. kingjamesbibleonline.org. [20] Turcan, Nicolae. “Fenomenul saturat și relevanța sa teologică.” Tabor, no. 8 (2015): 73–80. [21] Westphal, Merold. Transcendence and Self-Transcendence: On God and the Soul. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004. [22] Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicus. Translated by Mircea Dumitru and Mircea Flonta. București: Humanitas, 2001. [8]
- 99 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
DIALOGO
2.2; 100-110 (2015)
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.9 Constanta, ROMANIA - 2016, March 3
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy
Language, Definition and Transcendence in the Philosophy of Vedantic Non-Dualism. Landmarks for an Aphophatic Knowledge of the Ultimate Reality Lect. Ioan DURA, PhD
Faculty of Orthodox Theology University “Ovidius” from Constanța duraioan@yahoo.com
Abstract: The Transcendence represents the essential issue of each religion or philosophical paradigms. In this study I intent to highlight another paradigm of the language, definition and Transcendence relationship other than the Christian-theological and philosophicalGreek one, namely the philosophy of vedantic non-dualism (Advaita-Vedanta, that is maybe too little explored in the Romanian philosophy. The essence of the Advaita Vedanta philosophy – formulated by Sankara (788-820) – is the understanding of the Ultimate Reality declared in Chandogya-Upanisad VI.2.1 as Onewithout-the-second (Ekamevadvitiyam). The whole philosophical-religious perspective of Sankara depends of this non-dual Ultimate Reality understanding. In this order, I intend to approximate the technical exercise of the definition’s status in Indian logic, in general, and in the Advaita`s optics, in particular. In Advaita Vedanta, were elaborated two definitions about Brahman, namely: (1) accidental definition (tatastha-laksana) and (2) essential definition (svarupa-laksana). To give a definition to a thing is to mark the differentiation or the vyavrtti of every other thing and this result is obtained, generally, by
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
the referral to a property, which is distinctive of it. The definition (laksana) is different from the characterization, qualification (visesana, which is the positive identification of the attributes, and which characterizes a particular object. Keywords: transcendence, Advaita Vedanta, definition, tatastha-laksana, svarupa-laksana I. Introduction
Any religious experience, regardless of the cultural identity in which was materialized, and any analytical construction of the philosophical speech are, primarily, conceptualized. Up to the maximum experience of the ineffable (mystical) and ecstasy, is rationally went through a conceptual register which is targeting a verbalization of what the Ultimate Reality is, of course a speech that approximates and points to the Transcendent. In this exercise, the language, although it has a providential function, is experiencing a transformation in its structure from positive to negative statements. Ultimately, the descriptive
- 100 -
eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928 printISSN: 2457-9297, ISSN-L 2392-9928 ISBN 978-80-554-1208-5
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.9
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy functionality of concepts becomes irrelevant in order to include in definitions the Transcendent mystery. An essential aspect of the Sankarian perspective in the divine issue – of course the term divine is a bit strained in the Advaita`s context, but in the lack of another term, we use it – is the fact that Brahman is different (anya, The other one (tyad) or The one from beyond (para) in the Upanishad speech or absolute transcendence in terms of the Western philosophy: tatah param brahma param brhantam yathanikayam sarvabhutesu gudham ǀ visvasyaikam parivestitaram isam tam jnatvamrta bhavanti - “Who is higher than that, higher than brahman, the immense one hidden in all beings, in each according to its kind, and who alone encompasses the whole universe - when people know him as the Lord, they become immortal” (Svetasvatara-Upanisad III.7).[1] The transcendent quality of Brahman paradigmatically confirms his unicity and nondifferentiability, Brahman is the “unknown Beyond”[2] . In the presentation of this learning and regarding the clear approach of how the transcendent is defined in the advaita thinking, are taken into account the explanations of Sankara noted in his commentaries in the Sruti texts. We do not propose the analyzation of these Sanskrit terms – tyad, anya, para – which send to the transcendent dimension of the Ultimate Reality in the Indian philosophy, but the understanding of the intimate relationship between language and Transcendence or the way the definition operates in exploring the Ultimate Reality. II. The Transcendence – conceptual delimitations. The applicability of the concept in the horizon of the Eastern philosophy
In the Western philosophical-religious
http://dialogo-conf.com
field, the transcendence concept has some sort of ambiguity, suggested, mainly, by the attempt of a logical explanation of what it defines, that, ultimately, it only notices the inconsistency of the concept in discussion: “Analyzed from the logical point of view, the transcendence concept may seem to lack consistency. And that because, in any way we would try to define it, it will inevitably lead to paradox. Indeed, if the transcendent would be known and thus stated, even only as a transcendence quality, his transcendence would be argued, and what appeared transcendent, proved not to be so in reality. Because the real transcendent is supposed to be the fact of not being known or expressed in any way. On the other way, if the transcendent would be actually transcendent, then, as it shouldn’t be stated anything about it anymore, not even being transcendent, his transcendence would find itself cancelled again, once its reality wouldn’t be recognized and stated. From both situation it seems to result, therefore, that the idea of transcendence is inconsistent and that any philosophy that aims to take it seriously is inevitably fated for failure.”[3] Etymological, the Latin word transcendentia is bound by the term transcendere, namely “the act of passing over something”, “to cross beyond”. The word signifies therefore, the fact of “being beyond” a certain thing, domain, state or situation[4] : “Transcendentia – the passing (overcoming) of a border between two domains, exiting beyond (over) the borders of experience, of conscience or of the world, considered as «beyond», as purpose, as an object of this crossing, also as the Supersensible, The Absolute, especially God (being on the other side, object of the Revelation). «To transcend» – to move on to the transcendent, to get over a domain, into another, in transcendence.”[5] The term to transcend is used, especially, in the relationship of God with the universe
- 101 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y of the physical and finite things, as being in the essential nature, before that, above that and having the real existence in contrast to it.[6] Therefore, for Emmanuel Levinas, transcendence would appear to be “the paradox mark of the relationship [with God, n.n.] with what is separated [of him, n.n.]”[7] . In this connection, a specification seems to be fundamental, and namely that, in the terms of the religious philosophy, the transcendence denotes what overcomes or surpasses, what goes beyond the human thinking and finitude.[8] This feature leads to an understanding of the transcendence, both in the terms of the otherness of God from the finite world’s perspective, also in the terms of the unicity of God’s Being, and the unique relationship of God with the world. In religion and theology this is usually expressed in terms of holiness. We note here the reference work of R. Otto – Das Heilige (The Idea of the Holy) – which exposes this thing in terms of the numinous, that embodies that mysterium tremendum et fascinoscum, unfathomable, holy mystery, which evokes fear, veneration.[9] Is also relevant the paragraph from KathaUpanisad-Sankara-Bhasya II.3.2: “Prane (sati, Brahman Suprem, yat idam kim ca jagat sarvam, all this universe that exists; nihsrtam (sat) appearing – I act regularly. That Brahman which is the cause of the world’s origin is mahat bhayam, dreadful – bhayam is derived in the sense that someone would be afraid of that entity; vajram udyatam, as an elevated thunder” (Katha-UpanisadSankara-Bhasya II.3.2)[10] . Here we have the opportunity to specify that the classical term “completely different” is a description of the numinos object of the authentic religious experience. The basic position of R. Otto is that the religious experience at any level is an experience of the mysterium tremendum, a reality in the universe that may be described only in non-intellectual terms indicating a certain type of feeling.[11] According to Regina Schwartz[12] we
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
can discern two meanings of applying in philosophy, theology and literature of this term. The first one involves the contrast of the transcendence and immanence. A “vertical transcendence” suggests the exit from the immanent, phenomenal world, for another world, either in transcendence towards the heaven or hell. The second meaning of the transcendence would be “horizontal”, which implies the direction of the auto-transcendence, understanding that we are incompetent and searching that metaphysical realization of oneself. To continue on the same line of etymological explanations, the adjective transcendent is used in the following meanings: (1) surpassing the experience limits; (2) finding itself outside the boundaries of natural world, given through our senses; (3) finding itself beyond the human conscience domain – opposite concept: immanent[13] The Christian theology offers transcendent quality of God, through that it surpasses the ontological limit of the creature. The transcendent God approach belongs to the negative theology, which generates sentences under the empire of denials. Not least, it must be pointed out that Brahman, as a transcendent Entity, it must not be understood as being situated in a super-mundane order. The universe is an appearance and, in connection with the reality of Brahman, is unreal. This fact must not lead to the erroneous conclusion that in the vedantin non-dualism the empirical universe is a non-existence. The value and level of world’s reality are supported by Sankara as a very important aspect of the human experience. More than that, Brahman transcendent is immanent in the universe as Atman, as Self of all other conscious or unconscious beings. The transcendence and immanence correspond to the objective (Brahman) and subjective (Atman) dimension of the same Ultimate Reality that Brahman is transcendent and imma¬nent is not a
- 102 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.9
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy contradiction: “The transcendence and immanence are not mutually exclusive, but mutually determinative. All metaphysical systems that postulate an Ultimate Reality must show its double aspect, both being transcendent, and immanent.”[14] III. Language as indicator and support
of the aphophatic knowledge of the Ultimate Reality
The function of the human language developed in the empirical field, when it is applied to the non-dual and nonempirical Reality, is not a literal description, but a symbolical reference. Brahman, transcendent Reality, does not fall under the incidence of the empirical knowledge and linguistic expression. When the categories of the language are engaged with reference to Brahman, they do not bear their literal meaning. They lose their expressive meaning and normal capacity of literal description and adopt the symbolical function of referring to the transcendent Reality in a default mode: “Brahman, which is being itself, is beyond of descriptive thinking. What is of the nature of nondifference cannot be presented in the terms of descriptive thinking. Because the reality is non-dual, without characteristics and without distinctions, it can be only indicated using symbolic gestures or words. The use of literal language will not lead us to the understanding of the absolute. Do we mean that Brahman, since it is indescribable, does not exist? How are we to answer the charge of the positivists who believe that all metaphysical statements are nonsensical? If lang¬uage is to be meaningful, it must be able to give us knowledge of that of which it speaks. If words or sentences are unable to tell us anything about the absolute, then the existence of the absolute is negated by the very denial of language being useful in describing Brahman. However, to this Sankara says: ...that Brahman transcends
http://dialogo-conf.com
speech and thought does certainly not mean to say that Brahman does not exist.”[15] In this logic, “all concepts and words used with reference to Brahman have only a symbolical function” and are as “indicators” towards Brahman. The capacity of indicating the language is exercised in two ways: words and concepts can serve both to lead us far away from what Brahman isn’t and in the same time, can indicate the direction of touching the supreme knowledge of Brahman. Regarding the first function of the language, T. M. P. Mahadevan writes that “the language is in this context useful, not in the description of what is real […], but in our demarcation far away of what it is unreal”.[16] Thus, the empirical categories are capable of communicate to us what Brahman is not. This negative function is very important, because, on the basis of this character, non-dual Brahman is delimited by the world of plurality. In the positive function, the languages categories serve to indicating the defined orientation of the one engaged in searching of Brahman, with the purpose of reaching a realization of himself in the transcendental experience: “the language may help to indicate the direction in which the lighting must be searched”[17] . Quoting Sankara, T. M. P. Mahadevan notes: “Words are in the first place applicable to Brahman’s saguna, but through involvement, words can be helpful in indicating the nature of nirguna.”[18] Let’s exemplify this function of language indication, by indicating the moon on the sky. The position of the moon on the sky can be designated by saying that two meters across the branch of a certain tree glows the sphere of the moon. The only purpose of these words is to somehow aid in locating and identifying the moon. And this purpose is sufficiently satisfactory, as the moon can be traced by rotating the sight in the shown direction. It is obvious the fact that this words must not be understood here in their literal meanings, as if the position of the
- 103 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y moon on the sky is exactly at two meters away from the tree. Thus, in this example, the words are not intended to literally describe the position of the moon on the sky, but to only indicate towards the direction in which someone would look at the moon. In an analogous manner, when words and concepts are used with referral to Brahman, their literal meaning is transcendent, with the purpose of allowing them to indicate the ineffable reality of Brahman. The Sankarian philosophy is conjugated the best under the empire of apophatism. Non-dualism is, ultimately, a “doctrine of transcendence”, but the way that ends with the transcendence begins with the affirmation. Therefore is visible the polarity of the negative and positive texts in the Sankarian texts, alternation that absolutely does not argue with anything the principles of Advaita teaching: “The negative texts dealing with the process of passing beyond metaphysical enquiry lo direct mystical experience; these texts deal with the Absolute as an impersonal principle and an object of metaphysical enquiry; while positive texts deal with that same principle viewed in a more anthropomorphic guise. From the highest standpoint, the existence of the world and its objects is denied. But given the fact that we appear to live in a world of limitation, change and suffering, the negative texts argue that this very experience implies the existence of an impersonal ground that is not characterized by limitation, change or suffering. And positive texts argue that, viewed from the standpoint of worldly experience in which we live, this same Being may be endowed with personality and regarded as a divine magician who projects and controls the universe, animating and presiding| over it from within.”[19] If the negation neti, neti negates the phenomenal overlaps established by ignorance (avidya) on Atman/ Brahman, three positive terms state the interior
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
nature of Brahman: sat-cit-ananda, but also this terms must be understood in a negative connotation: “Brahman is not saccidananda, if by designating Brahman as saccidananda one does intend to ascribe a positive character to Brahman. As oneness, no wholly true affirmations (or negations) can be made about Brahman. Human language is grounded in a phenomenal experience of multiplicity and cannot therefore be used accurately to refer to Brahman: likewise, human logic is based upon phenomenal experience and thus is incapable of determining, without at the same time negating its subject. This condition which the mind finds itself subject to leads to the necessity to distinguish two forms, as it were, of Brahman: Brahman as it is in itself, nirguna Brahman, or Brahman without quality: and Brahman as it is conceived by man from his limited phenomenal standpoint, saguna Brahman, or Brahman with qualities. The affirmation of saguna Brahman, however, is not merely an acknowledgment of human limitations: it is also the name for that spiritual experience that harmonizes rather than obliterates distinctions. Saguna Brahman is the content of a loving experience of unity; nirguna Brahma is the content of an intuitive experience of identity. Saguna Brahman is not the highest possible form of experience: nevertheless, it is an extremely valuable experience in that it enables the Advaitin to affirm on one level of being the essential spirituality of everything that has being.”[20] IV. Definitional process in Advaita Vedanta: epistemological relevance of the language
We mention the fact that the problem of the definition in the Indian thinking was carefully treated by A. Faoucher[21] , M. Biardeau[22] , but, especially, by B. K. Matilal[23] and J. F. Staal[24] .
- 104 -
The Indian logicians conceived the http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.9
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy definition in terms completely different by the logic of the Western’s ones. For these, as S. Al-George[25] states, the definition does not resort to total comprehension of an object – given by the proximal kind and specific difference -, but only to a unique character, as a necessary and sufficient condition to define the respectively object. P. T. Raju is questioning if the definition can reach the essence of things, offering the following answer: “In mathematics definition gets at the essence of things because the thing is what it is through the definition, that is, the thing is constituted by the defi¬nition. But in dealing with concrete things like life and mind the definition cannot get at the essence. The thing here is unique and its nature is not exhausted by the definition. Definition can give at the most a kind of ‘sufficient descrip¬tion,’ which is a sufficient description for us. But sufficient description does not enable us to deduce one thing from another as we do in mathematics.”[26] This unique character, definiens[27] , is named laksana (“sign”). The Indian definition isn’t any characterizing definition, an enunciation of all notes, but has a restrictively character.[28] The Indian logicians distinguish uddeSa, which has the description of an object, of laksana, its definition which, as Vatsyayana states, “is the quality (dharma) as a factor of delimitation (avacchedaka) of the described object by the objects that are not it” (NyāyaSūtra-Bhāśya I.1.3)[29] . M. Biardeau states that through this definition it is not realized a comprehensive knowledge of the object, but is searched “to be highlighted the property that does not belong anymore to any other object”. The definition does not aim a complete description of the essence, but, it rather wants to indicate what, in this essence, only belongs to itself. Therefore, the definition is not an act of knowledge, but of recognition, not gnosiological, but pragmatic.[30]
http://dialogo-conf.com
A. J. Alston emphasizes the contrast between the way the definition was thought and established in the Indian tradition and in the Western traditional logic. Definition is more concerned with the extension of the term, with delimiting the range of objects to which it applies, than with its comprehension, with bringing out the essential attributes that it connotes. The defining characteristic is not chosen to distinguish the class of objects or the object denoted by the term from others and to relate it to them, but solely to distinguish it. We have definition solely by the difference, not by the genus and specific difference. The defining mark of the class ‘cow’ is ‘having a dewlap’, and the definition need in no way bring out the fact that the cow is an animal and a mammal and a ruminant and so forth. On such a view, when the class or universal is granted objective exist¬ence, as it is in Hindu philosophy, the definition of a universal term and of the class of objects for which it stands amounts to the same thing. And it follows further that definition is not confined, as it is in traditional Western logic, to concepts and universal terms; as defin¬ition does not imply the mention of essential attributes, it can very well apply to an individual within a class, merely by mentioning sufficient delimiting characteristics to mark that individual off from its fellows within the class.[31] Further, we review an exemplification of the definitional process, as we find it exposed in one of the Indian logic texts, more precisely a comment to Tarka-Saṁgraha: “The fact of possessing smell (gandhavatvam) is the defining sign (laksana) of [Element] Earth (prthivi); Earth is the object that must be defined (laksya, [definiendum], and the fact of being Earth (prthivitvam) is the delimited factor (avacchedaka) of the quality of being a defined object (definiendum). Thus, if the fact of being Earth (prthivitvam) is the delimited factor (avacchedaka) of the quality of being defined, the quality of being
- 105 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y defined is delimited by the fact of being Earth (prthivitvam).”[32] V. Accidental and essential definition
(tatastha-laksana / svarupa-laksana) in Indian logic In Advaita Vedanta, were elaborated two definitions about Brahman, namely: (1) accidental definition (tatastha-laksana) and (2) essential definition (svarupa-laksana) [33] . First, it is required an attention to the term definition, which is only an approximate way of offering the Sanskrit term laksana. Laksana derives from the verbal root laks, which means “to indicate”, “to signal”.[34] In the field of realities of this universe, the laksana definitions can be expressive, but, when we have to deal with the Ultimate Reality, these can only be indicative, because no finite concept can really express the infinite Being. A relational laksana signals or indicates the object as an existence that only determines itself in connection with another. In numerous cases, such a relationship is intrinsically to the indicated object, but, in the case of Brahman, not any kind of relationship with the world can’t be admitted as intrinsically. Just as the waves (tata) are not the river, but stretch along it (tatastha, the same way the relationship of Brahman with the world expand along him, but these are in reality extraneous to Brahman. Because of this, the relational definitions of Brahman are called tatastha-laksana. Therefore, when an object is defined with the help of a brand or property, we talk about the first kind of tatastha laksana definition or the per accidens qualification of an object. [35] As it can be observed, this definition is exterior to the thing itself, because it aims to the content of the proprieties or the attributes of the respective thing. In svarupa laksana, on the other hand, the essential nature of an object is expressed or in this definition is established what the object Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
itself is. It should be noted that this two definitions are elaborated from the two perspectives, which represent the Advaita epistemological key: tatastha-laksana is elaborated from the relative point of view (vyavaharika, and svarupa-laksana from the absolute point of view and both have as purpose to differentiate or individualize the thing defined by other stuff. This, the definitions svarupa-laksana and tatastha-laksana have as object Brahman as it is himself and how he is in relationship-with-the-world.[36] To answer why Sankara emitted the tatastha as the first definition, because normally it was imposed svarupa laksana as first definition, Rewati R. Pandey notes: “Because when the staggering, stunning and fabulous sphere of the world is denied, Brahman, the real is discovered. Brahman is not a reality and the universe another beside him. Brahman is the only reality, in which the world exists, which is appearance, vivarta. In the search of the truth the Vedanta approach follows the next plan from the unreal to the real, from false to truth. It does not exist other path, or the other way around, from real to unreal. This is the reason why Sankara begins the commentary (bhasya) to the Brahma-sutra with the discussion about illusion and ignorance [...] Sankara leads us from phenomenal to new-mental, from tatastha laksana to svaupa laksana”.[37] Equally, it must be highlighted also the methodological function of these two definitions of Brahman. Logically, being established that Brahman is nirguna, svarupa laksana cannot be conceived. Although it does not have characteristics, through which it can be defined, Brahman however is not evacuated by his own essence. More than that, the second type of definitions (tatastha-laksana) is not possible for Brahman being the only reality (ekamevadvitiyam, because it does not exist anything beside him as being distinctive. But, for the purpose of teaching, or exposing
- 106 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.9
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy the precept, these definitions referring to Brahman are necessary, because without a general idea about Brahman, a research of his own nature is impossible: “It is the purpose of the two definitions to direct and deepen the spiritual process already incipient in the brahma-jijnadsa. They constitute the two stages of the progress. Starting from phenomena, the tatasthalaksana leads us to the existence of Brahman as their unconditioned ground. The svarupalaksana enables us to penetrate deeper into its nature. The tatastha-laksana gives us the that of Brahman, and the svarupa-taksana tells us what it is.”[38] Or, as we will notice, tatastha-laksana is presenting Brahman as omniscient, omnipotent, the Cause of the universe, and, when Brahman is understood so, then is possible the understanding of Brahman as Ultimate Reality, beyond diversity: “Without understanding the unity in diversity we cannot understand the unity beyond the multiplicity. Without the understanding of the actual expressions of the consciousness we cannot understand it as a transcendental principle. Without finding the basis of the cause and effect, we cannot know the One. Without knowing the world’s appearance substrate, we cannot reach the Absolute.”[39] Sat-CitAnandaa is a definition that illustrates the essential character of Brahman, which offers a description to the essence of Brahman’s realization. In no sense this essential definition does not qualify or limit the reality in the way an ultimate ontological definition does and it also does not intend to qualify Brahman in a conceptual way. Since all the phenomenal distinctions depend of Brahman, they cannot serve as an adequate way for its understanding and definition. Thus, the absolute nonduality is permissible, but with the price of making the reality unreflective (acintya) and indescribable (anirvacaniya).[40] Once that non-dual Brahman is realized
http://dialogo-conf.com
in plenary experience, even these empirical indicators (Sat-Cit-Ananda) become irrelevant. To use a metaphor which T. M. P. Mahadevan borrows from the Western philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, these linguistic terms are like a ladder that can be used to climb until the knowing of the Absolute which is then thrown away once the goal has been reached. Although, for the one that realized Brahman, these categories of language are lacking sense and are irrelevant, they server for the purpose of indicating the way towards liberation. All Brahman’s characterizations aim in their experiential dimension to help the ones engaged in the search of Brahman, but haven’t realized him yet. The fact that the three terms that compose svarupalaksana are not simple linguistic artifices, but lead to a more profound understanding of them in experience, being specified by E. Deutsch: “Being (sat) apart from its complex historical-linguistic associations points to the ontological principle of unity.3 to the oneness not constituted of parts, to the existential substratum of all subjects and objects. Brahman is experienced as pure unqualified being. In fact it alone truly exists which is to say that its manner of being is not comparable to the supposed existence of anything else. Consciousness (cit) points to the principle of awareness which informs being and which is, for the Advaitin, an unchanging witness of our being. Brahmanexperience is illuminating experience; it is a state of conscious enlightenment. And it is a state of joyous being. Bliss (ananda) points to the principle of value: to the fact that Brahman-experience is ecstatic and annuls all partial value in its incomparable splendor.”[41] For a more accurate exposure of these two definitions it is needed an exemplification of them. For example, let’s assume that in a ceratin place there is a garden where there exist a number of trees. Between these trees there is an apple tree
- 107 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y and the rest are orange trees. If we give the svarupa-laksana definition to the apple tree, we can define it through the reference of the tree’s nature. The capacity of having the apple as a fruit of his own, forms the essential nature of the tree. Svarupa-laksana of the tree can be also expressed in this manner: the apple tree is the one that has as fruits the apple. On the other hand, if we give the tatastha-laksana definition to the same tree, we will need the help of a remark, a characteristic, specific notes, saying that there is a fountain next to the tree. Here, the fountain is a mark, which is outside the object. With the help of this remark, we can define the apple tree in this way: the apple tree is this one that is situated next to the fountain. Next, we will notice how these two definitions apply to Brahman. According with the law of universal causality, every effect must have his cause or nothing can be without cause. It is recognized in metaphysics that the world is an effect, which implies a cause. Sankara defines Brahman as cause of the world: tajjalan iti Santa upasita (Chāndogya-UpaniṣadŚaṅkara-Bhāṣya III.14.1) and yato va imani bhutani jayante (Taittirīya-UpaniṣadŚaṅkara-Bhāṣya III.1.1). Thus, Brahman was distinguished by Sankara by other entities like prakrti that were taken as cause of the world by other systems of the Indian philosophy, in this case being about Saṁkhya. Therefore, from the world’s effect as mark, Brahman was defined as world’s cause. From another mark it can be defined. In an illusion, for example, the appearance of the snake in the rope, the rope is adhisthana – the basis on which a property is established – to the snake and the snake is adhisthita – the element established on the basis of a quality or attribute – to the rope. In the same way, it should exist some adhisthana of the world’s appearance and Brahman is that adhisthana, on which the world is adhisthita. These definitions were clearly explained by
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Sankara, during the commentary of BrahmaSutra I.1.2. Therefore, tatastha-laksana, which is more about the sphere of descriptive expressions[42] , applied to Brahman, individualizes him from other entities with the specification that these entities do not exist in a real manner, and that they are an illusion, but the interior nature of Brahman is not expressed. She does not offer us an introspection, an image upon the interior nature of Brahman, but in the tatasthalaksana the characteristics of some other (in our case the world) are conveniently used to indicate Brahman. This definition makes that Brahman to appear the subject of causal categories and plans and rules Brahman as the cause of the phenomenal world, supporter and destroyer of it.[43] In contrast to tatastha-laksana, svarupalaksana, through which Brahman is defined as Sat (“Being”, Cit (“Consciousness”, Ananda (“Bliss”, is the non-relation definition, in the sense that definiendum and definiția coincide: Sat is not a property of Brahman, is not in Brahman and is not part of Brahman. Analogously to Cit and Aananda. Through svarupa-laksana the stage of understanding a thing with the help of another is outdated, which offers us the right to consider a superior level of spiritual consciousness. If tatastha represent the discursive stage, svarupa is the intuitive one, or, in intuition, the essence and existence coincide. Conclusions As it can be observed, also in the Christian theology and in the Vedantin non-dualism philosophy, Advaita Vedanta, it was shaped the same rational modality of reflecting, in the process of knowledge, upon the Absolute: from affirmation to negation. In this conceptual register, the language has a providential function and namely as
- 108 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.9
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy an indicator towards the Ultimate Reality. With the mention that the impossibility of the language to include in the concepts the being of Absolute does not lead to the non-existential postulation of Himself, the two philosophical-theological traditions converge in the direct, mystical experience, of the Ultimate Reality: operational, the language has a signification only at an empirical level and becomes irrelevant in the reality of experience. But, it must be specified the fact that beginning from here, from the point of experience, the two traditions are radically different: The Christian God is not an Absolute abstract, impersonal and immobile to itself, but one that it actual enters in the love relationship with the man, with the creature through the fact that it’s a Trinity of Persons. We consider that the concept of person, in the exercise of knowledge of the Ultimate Reality, is the key element of the transcendenceimmanent dialectics. References [1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
Patrick Olivelle, The Early Upanisads. Annoyayed Text and Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, 421. S. Satprakashananda, The Universe, God and God-Realization. From the Viewpoint of Vedanta The Vedānta. Society of St. Louis, 1977, 152. Gabriel Chindea, Paradoxul transcendenței la Aristotel și Plotin. București: Humanitas, 2008, 9. Jaegwon Kim, Ernest Sosa, and Gary S. Rosenkrantz, A Companion to Metaphysics. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2009, 326. Alexandru Boboc, “Ideea de transcendență: perspectiva metafizică și perspectiva teologică”, in Credința și mărturisirea ei, ed. Pr. Petre Semen. Iași: Editura Doxologia, 2010, 18. Lindsay Jones, Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 13. Farmington Hills: Thomson Gale, 2005, 9281. Pierre Hayat, “Philosophy Between Totality
http://dialogo-conf.com
and Transcendence, în Emmanuel Levinas”, in Alterity and Transcendence, trans. Michael B. Smith. London: The Athlone Press, 1999, ix. [8] Anthony C. Thiselton, A Concise Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Religion. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2002, 310. [9] Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy. An Inquiry into the Non-reational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational, trans. John W. Harvey. London: Oxford University Press, 1936, 12-42. [10] Eight Upaniṣads. Volume I Īśa, Kena, Kaṭha and Taittirīya). With the Commentary of Śaṅkarācārya, trans. Swami Gambhirananda. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1972, 202. [11] Winston L. King, “Negation as a Religious Category,” The Journal of Religion 37 1957, 108. [12] Regina Schwartz, “Transcendence: Beyond...”, in Transcendence. Philosophy, Literature, And Theology. Approach The Beyond, ed. R. Schwartz. London: Routledge, 2004, ix-x. [13] Boboc, “Ideea de transcendență: perspectiva metafizică și perspectiva teologică”, 18. [14] Chin-Tai Kim, “Transcendence and Immanence,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 55 1987, 537. [15] Moti Lal Pandit, Sankara`s Concept of Reality. New Delhi: Books for Better Living, 1981, 6-7. [16] T. M. P. Mahadevan, “Value and Reality: A Comparative Study, ” International Philosophical Quarterly 6 1966, 30. [17] Mahadevan, “Value and Reality: A Comparative Study”, 31. [18] T. M. P. Mahadevan, Advaita in the ViṣṇuPūrāṇa. Poona, 1971, 36. [19] A. J. Alston, Śaṅkara on the Absolute, Volume I. London: Shanti Sadan, 2004, 181. [20] E. Deutsch, Advaita Vedānta: A Philosophical Reconstruction. Honolulu: University of Hawai`i Press, 1969, 14. [21] A. Foucher, Le compendium des topiques (Tarkasamgraha) d`Annam-bhatta. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1949, 8-9. [22] M. Biardeau, “La définition dans la penseé indienne,” Journal Asiatique 245 1957, 371-
- 109 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y 84. B. K. Matilal, “The Intensional Character of Lakṣaṇa and Saṁkara in Navya-Nyāya,” Indo-Iranian Journal 8 1964, 85-95. [24] J. F. Staal, „The Theory of Definition in Indian Logic,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 81 1961, pp. 122-26. [25] S. Al-George, Limbă și gândire în cultura indiană. București: Editura Paralela 45, 2005, 99. [26] P. T. Raju, Thought and Reality. Hegelianism and Advaita. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1937, 260. [27] Definiens – a word, a sentence or symbolical expression used to define something; definiendum – a word, sentence or symbol which is the subject of a definition. [28] N. K. Devaraja, An Introduction to Śaṅkara`s Theory of Knowledge. Varanasi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1962, 91-92. [29] Al-George, Limbă și gândire în cultura indiană, 99. [30] Biardeau, “La définition dans la penseé indienne,”373-374. [31] Alston, Śaṅkara on the Absolute, 182-83. [32] Foucher, Le compendium des topiques. (Tarkasamgraha) d`Annam-bhatta, 10. [33] J. Grimes, An Advaita Vedānta Perspective on Language. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, 1991, 230. [34] S. Al-George, “Sign (Lakṣaṇa) and Propositional Logic in Pāṇini,” East and West 19 (1969, 176-93. [35] P. K. Mohan, Śaṅkara`s Concept of God. Nellore: Nelanutala Publishers, 1978, 89. [36] R. Balasubramanian, “The Absolute and God,” in The Tradition of Advaita. Essays in Honnour of Bhāṣyabhāvajña V.R. Kalyāṇasundara Śāstrī, ed. R. Balasubramanian. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt Ltd, 1994, 31. [37] Rewati R. Pandey, Scientific Temper and Advaita Vedānta. Varanasi: Sureshonmesh Prakashan, 1991, 65. [38] T. R. V. Murti, “The Two Definitions of Brahman in the Advaita,” in Studies in Indian Thought. Collected Papers of Prof. T.R.V. Murti, ed. Harold G. Coward. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983, 75. [23]
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
S. Satprakashananda, The Universe, God, and God-Realization. From the Viewpoint of Vedānta. The Vedānta Society of St. Louis, 1977, 203. [40] W. M. Indich, Consciousness in Advaita Vedānta. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, 1995, 5. [41] Deutsch, Advaita Vedānta. A Philosphical Reconstruction, 10. [42] Ganeśwar Miśra, Language, Reality, and Analysis. Essays in Indian Philosophy, ed. J. N. Mohanty. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990, 4. [43] Grimes, An Advaita Vedānta Perspective on Language, 231. [39]
- 110 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2; 111-122 (2015)
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.10 Constanta, ROMANIA - 2016, March 3
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy
Transcendence and Transcending in the Theology of Father Dumitru Staniloae Fr. Lect. Grigore Dinu Moș, PhD Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Babeș-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca, Romania grigoredinumos@yahoo.com
Abstract: From the perspective of man’s relation to the transcendent God, a central concept in the thought of father Dumitru Stăniloae is that of “transcending”, of self-transcendence, of man going beyond himself towards his neighbours and towards his deeper self, towards the mystery of the world and of existence in general, culminating with the fundamental act of transcending towards the divine Absolute. He uses this concept in almost all areas of theology: gnoseology, anthropology, cosmology, ecclesiology, mysteriology, eschatology, spirituality, as well as when discussing ideas of important existentialist and personalist philosophers of the 20th century. According to Stăniloae, God’s transcendence reveals itself as holiness, while Christ, the God-Man, who makes possible man’s convergent and unitary act of transcending, is the “true transcendence”. The real correspondence between transcendent and transcendental emphasizes the Christological foundation of Christian anthropology. For father Stăniloae, man’s self-transcendence is determined by his attraction towards the divine Absolute, as well as by his lack of fulfilment in this world. Monotony is defined as the absence of transcendence, hell – as the impossibility
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
- 111 -
of transcending, and pride as a negative and delusive transcendence. The mystery is a sign of the Transcendent, while man is characterised by an endless act of transcending towards his own mystery, enlightened by the mystery of God. Words and logoi are means of transcending which urge us to purify our mind and to act immediately. The necessity and meaning of the act of transcending are emphasized by the image of the Cross, which makes the world transparent, revealing its Creator. According to Stăniloae, man is a being which transcends time through repentance and hope, while the Church is the immanent which incorporates the transcendent. Moreover, he sees the Holy Sacraments as steps in the act of transcending from the sphere of the created to the uncreated Absolute throughout the course of our life on earth and theological virtues (faith, hope and love) as acts of transcending through which man anticipates and foretastes eternal life. Love is, for the Romanian theologian, the supreme act of transcendence, which brings man the gift of perfection and the plenitude of happiness. Keywords: transcendence, (self-) transcending, transcendental, person, holiness,
eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928 printISSN: 2457-9297, ISSN-L 2392-9928 ISBN 978-80-554-1208-5
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y mystery, cross, hope, love I. The circumscription of the concepts of transcendence and transcending in the thought of father Dumitru Stăniloae Father Stăniloae used the concepts of transcendence and transcending in various studies and chapters throughout his theological writings, especially in the books Jesus Christ or the Restoration of Man (1943), God’s Immortal Image (1987) and Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (1978). We must note the fact that he has shaped his concepts and vision about transcendence by assimilating, refining or evaluating the ideas of several philosophers and thinkers of the 20th century, such as Lucian Blaga, Ewald Burger, Martin Heidegger, Karl Jaspers, Eberhard Grisebach, Pierre Emanuel, Emanuel Mounier, Herbert Muhlen, Jean Lacroix, Søren Kierkegaard and others. In a first conceptual circumscription, Stăniloae situates both God’s transcendence towards the world and towards man and man’s self-transcendence towards God within the following relations of otherness: uncreated/ created[1] and infinite/finite[2]. Moreover, he attributes transcendence primarily to the infinite divine Subjects who – through the Incarnation of the Logos and the uncreated energies – can even transcend their own transcendence in relation to the world. Conceiving divine transcendence primarily or exclusively at the level of the essence (thus eluding the hypostases and the divine energies) has always led to an unsolvable problem: either God’s transcendence is so radical that one would not be able to know anything about Him, not even His existence, let alone His transcendence, or, by being knowable in His essence, God would no longer be transcendent[3]. By interrogating being in an exclusively rational manner, seeking impersonal power and the pure objectivity of things, “what philosophy has always missed was the fair mediation between what isAbsolute and what is human”[4]. Therefore, a healthy and satisfying rendition of the relation between transcendent
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
and immanent can only be expected from a “philosophy of the mystery of personal being”[5], grounded in the Revelation. Thus, according to father Dumitru Stăniloae, “God’s transcendence is ensured by his character as a Person”[6], because the infinite Person (or infinity structured hypostatically) is above any other form of infinity.[7] What is more, as we will further illustrate, father Stăniloae sees holiness as “the attribute of transcendence as a person”[8] and Jesus Christ as “true transcendence.”[9] From the perspective of man’s relation to the transcendent God, a key concept in the anthropology and the eschatology of father Dumitru Stăniloae is that of “transcending”, of self-transcendence, of man going beyond himself towards his neighbour and towards his deeper self, towards the mystery of existence and of the world in general, culminating in the radical transcending towards the divine Absolute. According to him, a trait specific to man is the ability to find his way towards God’s infinity “through a continuous vertical and horizontal transcending”[10], towards the world, towards people and towards God, wishing to encompass all that exists, to experience and to know all things as God does. In this totalising movement, by continuously enlarging his conscience, man realizes that “there is a reality beyond his conscience which is inaccessible to him, but which explains the one that is accessible”[11]. As God remains elusive to man in the transcendence of His essence and in His absolute infinity, „transcending” is the act which makes possible the dynamic and “the apophatic-cataphatic continuum”[12] of knowledge, as well as the ceaseless mystical ascent towards deification. Thus, it is of considerable importance for both Christian gnoseology and Orthodox spirituality. In this regard, Saint Gregory of Nyssa made an essential contribution by providing the concept of epektasis. “The doctrine of epektasis represents perfection as a process of constant advance as the soul reaches out to the infinite.”[13] Epektasis is an endless and uninterrupted transcending of rational beings in their union with the infinite God [14] through their participation to the
- 112 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.10
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy divine attributes[15]. This movement is specific both to angelic hierarchies (Saint Dionysius the Areopagite)[16] and to glorified people in their perpetual and endless movement around God (Saint Maximus the Confessor).[17] The fact that man “transcends his own nature and becomes immune to corruption and mortality”[18] is of the utmost importance. If, over the course of his life on earth and within the sphere of his freedom of choice, man’s self-transcendence prevails as an act of free self-determination in collaboration with divine grace, in the Kingdom of Heaven, God Himself is the One who transcends man, while man only „endures deification” (Saint Maximus the Confessor), for he experiences the infinity of God within the sphere of a supra-elective aeonic freedom (Saint Gregory of Nyssa)[19]. II. Holiness as an attribute of the transcendent divine Person Father Stăniloae has shown that the presence of holiness in the world is proof of the existence of a transcendent God who descends to sanctify man, but keeps His own transcendence in the process, because otherwise, „the world could not bear His holiness and could not partake in it.”[20] Holiness concentrates all the divine attributes and expresses what makes God different from the world, that „wholly other” (das ganz Andere) which causes fear and fascination before the sacred mystery (mysterium tremendum).[21] His fear, shame and shyness indicate the fact that, at the heart of the mystery, man infers the presence of a transcendent Person, of a supreme conscience which reveals and enlightens his own, making him more responsible. “God’s holiness appears as a majesty which generates infinite humility in man and this is one with true self-awareness.”[22] At the same time, the holy mystery of the transcendent Person attracts with an irresistible power, helps overcome fear, and brings about in man an irrepressible desire for purity and a sacred boldness of going beyond himself, while the heart is pierced until the full transparency and clarity of love, until the state of sacrifice. “This surrendering towards the absolute Person is a sanctifying self-sacrifice,
http://dialogo-conf.com
because it is an act of transcending above all that is relative”[23]. Man “surrenders himself”, “forgets himself, goes beyond himself”, but, by doing so, he “fulfils himself in the most authentic way possible”[24]. However, since man could not travel the path to holiness by himself after the fall of Adam, the Son of God travelled this path once and for all for the entire humankind through his Incarnation, Sacrifice and Resurrection, and travels it to the end of the age through the Holy Spirit alongside every person who answers His calling. III. Christ, the “true transcendence” which makes possible the convergent and unitary transcending of man For father Stăniloae, Christ is “the true transcendence” because in Him we can find “the Absolute in a real Person”[25], which comes in absolute proximity to us. At the same time, the God-Man encompasses and overcomes all the boundaries and all the acts of transcending which define man. He knocks gently, but insistently at the door of every person’s heart. Christ offers the possibility of a real and limitless transcending, starting with the abandonment of our own ego, continuing with victory over death and over hell and ending with overcoming the limitations of our condition as created beings. Influenced by Christian personalists Ewald Burger and Louis Lavelle, father Stăniloae has proved that the intuitions of certain existentialist philosophers of the 20th century with regard to man – the act of transcending towards death within the horizon of the world (Heidegger), that of transcending towards others (Grisebach) and that of transcending the objectivations of experience (Jaspers) – can only take man on the brink of transcendence, without actually offering him the possibility of a true transcendence.[26] “True transcendence is both a supreme boundary and an unlimited resource at the same time and only a supreme person, a supreme subject can possess both qualities”[27], which man can experience when he enters in true communion with God. The act of transcending only toward
- 113 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y death, without a foretaste and an anticipation of eternal life – through the faith, hope and love offered by Christ – is an utter return to the world, a return to oneself in pure immanence. In fact, Heidegger, while he considered the transcendence of the “human Dasein” as a “fundamental constitution of this existence which occurs before any other relation” and as one that constitutes man’s “selfhood”[28], has nevertheless defined transcendence limitatively as „Being-in-the-world”[29]. While, for Heidegger, transcendence is reduced to a self-transcendence of man in a mundane project, simultaneous to his throwing himself into nothingness, father Stăniloae emphasizes God’s presence and work in the world and in man[30], as well as the real attraction towards the Absolute, for the incarnated Logos is not only the end of the road, but also the Path itself. Furthermore, “treasuring our neighbour as a boundary which should be respected and as a transcendence”[31] is proportional to the a priori belief in the transcendent God who created him, who loves him, being identified with him and revealing Himself iconically through him; for Christ identifies Himself both with the one who loves and with the one who is loved, seeking to unite these hypostases in the heart of every man. For Stăniloae, “the only true transcendence is Jesus Christ and the only form of true transcending is that which stems from the love of Christ”[32], determining man’s fulfilment after the model of Christ. Consequently, from a Christian perspective, man’s acts of transcending are real and authentic insofar as they are theandric[33]. Influenced by French Christian personalism, father Stăniloae has shown that the human person is defined by the fact that it creates itself by continuously going beyond itself[34], participating synergistically to the deifying and perfecting work of the Creator. However, for man to avoid wasting himself in the world, for the act of transcending to create, not to destroy, it can only be convergent and unitary. “Man must, in a way, gather all and unite with as many as possible, not only to see everything
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
and everyone in their unity, but also to see in everything and everyone the One who is above everything and everyone.”[35] The convergent and unitary character of the act of transcending means that all existences and things must be overcome towards their origin, their centre and their ultimate meaning, which is God. To make such a convergent and unitary act accessible to man, God Himself became man and became flesh through His Incarnation. „Had the Son of God not become man, our transcending from creation to the transcendent God would have remained nothing more than an aspiration, an eternally unfulfilled tension. The unity between us would also be forever insufficient. (…) Only due to the Advent of Christ, God truly becomes all in all”.[36] IV. The correspondence between transcendent and transcendental as a foundation for a Christological anthropology Karl Rahner once talked about a “transcendental Christology”, i.e. of a longing for Christ, the incarnated Logos, engrained in the fundamental constitution of man, in his self-awareness. Christ as a necessity has been pointed out from several perspectives: man’s need of meaning, his need of absolute love or his hope for the future.[37] In the opinion of father Stăniloae, this “Christological transcendental” is imposed to man by a God who created the world and who transcends it, who conceived man ever since Creation with a view of His own Incarnation. “Man is only fully man when united with divine transcendence. Human nature has obtained this fulfilment only in the Son of God.”[38] In other words, in the incarnated Logos, the divine transcendent becomes a human transcendental, without ceasing to remain transcendent. There is a certain reciprocity here: in symbolic religious knowledge, as well as in cataphatic knowledge, “the transcendent sacred shapes itself according to the sphere of expectations of the transcendental sacred”[39], but this act of shaping is possible exactly because there is
- 114 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.10
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy an a priori transcendent determination of the transcendental sacred. V. The direct and immediate cause of the act of transcending By shifting the discussion towards a strictly apologetic perspective, father Stăniloae has shown that the need to transcend the material world is determined by the unhappiness, the dissatisfaction and the unfulfilment of man within the horizon of the world.[40] The content of spiritual life lived in communion with his neighbour offers man a sense of fulfilment which is higher than any worldly pleasure or material satisfaction, but not even in this communion with his neighbours does man find peace and stability in his life.[41] The nature, the world and the person of his neighbour do not offer man an utter act of transcending, but they can mediate his plenary transcending towards God[42]. Whichever way we look at it, “the need for transcendence is an organic part of human existence”[43], and this need seeks its appropriate fulfilment. Since nothing from this world can possibly fulfil it, the only solution that remains is the mystical and eschatological one. The peace of conscious creatures in God means that nothing can attract them outside of God [44], precisely because they find the plenitude of happiness, fulfilment and satisfaction in God’s infinity. VI. Monotony as an absence of transcendence; hell as the impossibility of transcending; pride as a negative and delusive transcendence According to father Stăniloae, where there is no transcending, there is monotony and where there is no convergence of the acts of transcending, there is animosity and struggle. [45] “The meaning of existence can only culminate with the boundless and eternal light of a transcendent life, free from any monotony caused by repetition”[46], from any conflict and from any relativity and instability. For Stăniloae,
http://dialogo-conf.com
pantheist philosophies cannot offer created beings anything beyond the monotony of their appearance and disappearance according to a series of implacable immanent laws and cannot raise man from the monotony of corruption and death, from the repetitiveness of the laws of nature and from the selfish confinement within his own ego. Christ, however, offers man immortality and deification through grace by uniting him with the eternal and transcendent God, as well as true freedom in God’s infinity. [47] Apart from this, man’s movement towards God is characterized by countless acts of transcending towards others and, through them, towards God – acts of overcoming that are unique and different one from the other, which is the exact opposite of monotony, for the relationship with each person brings new issues, tasks and callings and enables new possibilities, feelings and responsibilities in man [48]. From this perspective, “torment of hell lies in the impossibility of any act of transcending. (…) In hell, there is no hope for the future, neither is there a belief that we can fix things from our past. We can no longer transcend ourselves towards others, towards their real mystery; therefore, we can no longer transcend ourselves towards our own mystery and towards the mystery of God”. [49] The inability to love of the people in hell is, in fact, an inability of transcending themselves. Father Stăniloae also talks about the possibility of a negative act of transcending, orientated towards oneself, which is the essence of pride. Man can deviate his movement from deification to himself, but this act of transcending towards himself is delusive and lacks any confirmation, real convergence or communion. The fact that man can forever cultivate the illusion that he is or that he may become god on his own is truly tragic.[50]
- 115 -
VII. Mystery as transcendence and man’s endless transcending towards his own mystery, enlightened by the mystery of God Unlike Camus and other French existentialists
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y for which the absurdity of the world leaves no room for mystery, Stăniloae sees mystery as a sign of transcendence, of a divine rationality and of certain meanings beyond man, but to which man is called to participate. His apologetic rhetoric is remarkable: “How can one reach the conscience that the world is absurd, if not for the fact that he sees it rationally or that he sees it as contrary to man’s rational desire for meaning? How would we become aware of meaning if everything were absurd? (…) If questions do not look for meanings or are absurd, why do we still ask them? Why don’t we negate the very conscience that affirms the absurdity of the world?”[51] Man sees the world as absurd only when he does not see the spiritual, indefinable and inexhaustible dimension of his existence, confining himself to “what is superficial, opaque and purely biological in the world and in man”[52] and denying the possibility of defining himself and living within a dimension far superior to the material world. Nevertheless, certain researchers have proved that father Stăniloae was too trenchant when stating that, in The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus particularly attributes to the world the character of the absurd, as the subject of this writing does not step completely outside the sphere of Christian existentialism, sometimes denoting a secret religious inspiration and finding a certain form of resistance against the absurd in the dynamic of love.[53] The mystery of one’s own existence and the mystery of others can be explained through the inexhaustible and illuminating mystery of God Himself. The personalist considerations of father Stăniloe, influenced by the ideas of Pierre Emmanuel and Heribert Mühlen, are extremely deep. He shows that people support their life through the continuous communication of their mystery and through the fact that they are not emptied in what they communicate, which increases their desire to receive more and more from the others through their communication. At the same time, the others are, through their very communication, a border which cannot be passed. This shows that the others are not products of our own subjectivity and cannot
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
be transformed into simple means or auxiliary needs, neither can they be nullified by anyone in what is specific to them[54]. Stăniloae points out the irreducible character of any human being, as well as the impossibility of defining it by using self-referential or purely immanent or horizontal determinations. “By surrendering myself to another, I still remain within myself, unmistakably, and so does the other. The more the he surrenders himself to me, the more present I feel him in myself, as different from me. (…) But I cannot be whole without communicating with him, without him surrendering himself entirely to me and vice versa.”[55] Through the fact that the other does not originate from us and does not depend on us in his ultimate destiny, we experience in him a certain limit of our own, but also the discovery beyond him of a horizon of mystery which requires God.[56] However, man’s movement of transcending is directed not only towards the others, but also towards his own mystery, towards his deepest self. Father Stăniloae defines man as a “self-awareness in the endless movement of transcending towards his own mystery and towards the Absolute mystery on which he is dependent.”[57] Man is more than he can define, characterize, contain and answer about himself. The conscience of incomprehensibility defines him to the fullest extent. Even if he can and must progress in the knowledge of his own mystery, he will never reach the end of it, which is in God’s infinity.[58] Hence, the necessity of prolonging his existence into eternity.[59] The fact that man goes beyond the material world through his superior qualities and needs shows that his departure from the world and from his body in death cannot be his end, but rather a more plenary transcending of it[60]. As opposed to Lucian Blaga, father Stăniloae considered that mystery alone is not enough to characterize transcendence, as transcendence must exert on man a power of reclaiming which engages him completely, in thought and word, in act and in the dedication of his entire life [61]. The vaults of Orthodox churches do not indicate an “anonymous transcendent” which deviates
- 116 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.10
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy man’s impetus of rising, but “the personal God who embraces the community with love to attract it to His own life, glorifying it” [62]. A testament in this regard is the icon of the Pantocrator, which occupies the central and highest place on the vault of the large spire. VIII. Words and logoi as means of transcending, which urge us to purify our mind and to act immediately According to father Stăniloae, the logoi of things and the words they express all have in them the power and the meaning of transcendence. “Words are finite means through which the indefinite or even the infinite is suggested.”[63] Every man transcends himself by applying his reason to the things in the world towards the supreme Logos, the Creator of the world. More precisely, all people transcend themselves through the common logoi in things towards „the One who gave them things as plasticised logoi to the extent of their rational capacity”[64]. It is important to mention the fact that religious knowledge uses a broader meaning of the concept of rationality, in which it also includes the religious symbol and its function of mediating between the transcendent and the immanent.[65] Man attributes to God names and positive traits of the world and of his experience, but with meanings which go beyond their human or mundane references. Stăniloae stresses the fact that each person transcends itself, the world and other people not only by living their mystery and enjoying their higher meanings, but especially by answering God’s call through deeds and actions in accordance with these superior reasons, seeking the unity and the transfiguration of the entire world in the incarnated Logos.[66] IX. The cross as transcending and transcending as light The Orthodox Christian is not a passive being and is not only aware that “the transcendent descends”, as Lucian Blaga considered, but
http://dialogo-conf.com
also believes that he must become capable of receiving God through a spiritual progression which requires askesis and purification, overcoming sinful attachment to worldly things and cultivating virtues.[67] To reach the purified meaning of things, one must regard them as gifts of God and they must sealed by the cross, as a barrier against enslaving passions. “The world is a gift of God, but the destiny of this gift is to unite us with God, who has given it. The intention of the gift is that in itself it should be continually transcended.”[68] Hence, “every gift requires a certain cross and this cross is meant to show us that they are not the last and final reality. […] St. Maximus the Confessor said that <all the realities which we perceive with the senses demand the cross>”[69], because “the function of the cross is to reveal God as the one who transcends all His gifts”[70]. Therefore, the cross is purification, abstinence, abandonment and freedom from things and from oneself with the view of discovering God. The cross is a form of transcending above things and above oneself towards God.[71] The cross invites us to rise above the individualism and selfishness specific to the carnal and psychical man, in order to make room for the hypostatic[72] and universal life, to the fullness of life of the spiritual man. Essentially, “the cross signifies both the limit of the world and its openness towards the transcendence of the Creator”[73]. We must stress the fact that the Cross offers the power to overcome the limits of things, as well as our own limits through and in the act of admitting them and of taking responsibility for them. This means that, in a way, the Cross makes things transparent; it takes our being to a state of clarity and makes it capable of keeping the grace of the Holy Spirit. As a matter of fact, another concept that father Stăniloae used extensively and that he often associated to the act of transcending is that of „transparency”. For instance, he suggestively names one of his subchapters: “Man, the exterior world and God’s forever increased transparency through it.”[74] According to him, any selftranscendence takes place in light, as light is the
- 117 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y medium of transcending the world; essentially, transcending oneself means becoming light. X. Man as a being that transcends time through repentance and hope According to father Stăniloae, another definition of man which implies the concept of “transcending” is the following: “Man is a being that transcends time towards eternity through hope and repentance”[75]. Stăniloae is somewhat critical towards Heidegger and Camus, who viewed man reductively as “an existence towards death”, which would exclude hope as a major existential act. However, man always transcends himself towards the future, but not so much towards a future of his earthly existence, which ends in death, as towards his eschatological future,[76] anticipating and foretasting his own resurrection and eternal life. According to father Stăniloae, “Heidegger completely assimilated hope into concern. (…) But why should we worry so much about our life if it is fleeting? In fact, for Stăniloae, concern cannot be expressed without hope. But hope, which lies at the foundation of concern, should not be extended only to a time as short as our life on earth.”[77] Without the movement through hope towards a joyful eternity, man would not only be passive from a spiritual standpoint, but also irrational.[78] For what can be more irrational than the negation of meaning, of the very structure of our conscience and of the world’s rationality, of the perpetuity of love and knowledge, of what is superior and true, of the very foundations of hope? According to father Stăniloae, man is capable of opening the present both towards the past and towards the present: he brings back the past to the present and takes from it help and strength for a better future, which he desires and awaits with hope. The past does not possess a fatal domination over man. In the present, man prepares his future by erasing the negative marks of the past, by becoming free from the wrong he has done, by taking responsibility for the consequences of his poor choices, by
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
repenting deeply and persistently. He relives the difficult moments of his past differently, with suffering and repentance, striving to repair what he broke initially. Thus, man can control to some extent all three dimensions of time: past, present and future, which are all concentrated in the present moment to the extent to which, in the act of transcending, it also makes eternity present in it[79]. In transcending the moment towards eternity, prayer and humility are of the utmost importance, as a plenary and a conscious appearance before God. We could say that humility is the most plenary act of self-transcendence, both towards one’s own nothingness and towards the plenitude of the infinite divine essence, an act that ensures man’s complete freedom and willingness to fulfil God’s will and to receive His grace. Emphasizing the implications of his theological vision regarding the transcendence of time in spirituality, father Stăniloae has shown that the more present the past is through repentance for one’s sins, the more preoccupied one is with his eternal future.[80] But one’s repentance is only fruitful insofar as it is immediately accompanied by good deeds, which consolidate his decision to continue and to increase their number in the future and which lay an honest foundation to the present hope that the good which has been done will also resonate in eternity.[81] XI. The Church, the immanent which incorporates the transcendent. The Holy Sacraments as steps in the act of transcending. Theological virtues as acts of transcending. According to a definition given by father Stăniloae, “The Church is the immanent which incorporates the transcendent, the Trinitarian community of Persons full of endless love for the world, maintaining in it a continuous movement of self-transcendence through love.”[82] Through Christ as the head of the Church, humankind is in a direct relation with the ultimate transcendence. Helped by this fundamental and central Hypostasis, humankind
- 118 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.10
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy has the perspective of an endless transcending. [83] Father Stăniloae sees the Holy Mysteries as “steps in our transcending towards God throughout our life on earth.”[84] The Mysteries are acts of transcending not from one step to another within the sphere of the created, but from the created to the uncreated Absolute, performed through the power of God.[85] If man’s transcending towards God and God’s descent to man were made in Christ for all, through the Holy Sacraments, they are made in each person individually.[86] Through the Holy Eucharist, the most complete transcending of man towards God and the most complete descend of God to man take place.[87] In this ecclesial and mysteriological context, father Stăniloae regards theological virtues as acts of transcending. Through faith, hope and love, “man anticipates and partly fulfils the overcoming and the transcending of all, uniting with the One who is above all”[88]. We could say that faith is a trans-conceptual, trans-categorial and trans-archetypal act. It goes beyond our own subjectivity, but without having an objectifying goal. It is the first stage of contemplating the uncreated Light, still partial, still indistinct, providing the necessary distance for the self-determination and the maturation of the spiritual man within the limitations of this very world, given by the death of the psychical and carnal man. Hope transcends time, foretastes eternity, encompasses more light and joy. „In true love, a man should transcend himself, go beyond himself, and the supreme act of this transcendence is fulfilled in the love for God, who is the Transcendent One.”[89] In love, one can find the plenitude of light, the highest point of perfection, the sum of all gifts and virtues, the maximum point of bliss and of transcendence, the fullness of being and the maximum of its hypostatic concentration. References [1]
Dumitru Stăniloae, Teologia dogmatică ortodoxă, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (București: Institutul biblic și de misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe
http://dialogo-conf.com
Române, 1996), 86. Grigore-Dinu Moș, “Conceptul de infinit în teologia părintelui Dumitru Stăniloae,” in Părintele profesor Dumitru Stăniloae sau consonanța dintre dogmă, spiritualitate și liturghie, ed. Nicolae Răzvan Stan and Lucian Dindirică (Craiova: Mitropolia Olteniei, 2015), 248, 250, 254–256. [3] That fact that God descends to the world without losing His transcendence can be explained through the nature of divine infinity: this exceeds any form of „negative infinity”, defined by contrasting it with what is finite. [4] Aurel Codoban, “Ființă și Persoană - glose despre relația dintre filosofia occidentală și religia creștină,” in Persoană și comuniune. Prinos de cinstire preotului profesor academician Dumitru Stăniloae (19031993), ed. Ioan I. Ică jr (Sibiu: Arhiepiscopia ortodoxă Sibiu, 1993), 231. [5] Dumitru Stăniloae, Poziția domnului Lucian Blaga față de creștinism și Ortodoxie, ed. Mihai-Petru Georgescu (București: Paideia, 1993), 108. [6] Dumitru Stăniloae, Teologia dogmatică ortodoxă, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (București: Institutul biblic și de misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, 1996), 86. [7] Ibid., 1:86–87. [8] Ibid., 1:178. [9] Dumitru Stăniloae, Iisus Hristos sau restaurarea omului, 2nd ed. (Craiova: Omniscop, 1993), 54–64. [10] Dumitru Stăniloae, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu (Craiova: Mitropolia Olteniei, 1987), 11. [11] Ibid., 30. [12] Silviu Eugen Rogobete, O ontologie a iubirii. Subiect și Realitate Personală supremă în gândirea teologică a părintelui Dumitru Stăniloae, trans. Anca Dumitrașcu and Adrian Guiu, Plural. Religie (Iași: Polirom, 2001), 73–79. [13] Norman Russel, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, ed. Gillian Clark and Andrew Louth, Oxford Early Christian Studies (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 231. [2]
- 119 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y Norman Russel, Fellow Workers with God: Orthodox Thinking on Theosis, Foundations Series 5 (New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009), 20, 89, 154–155. [15] Russel, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, 234. [16] Stăniloae, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, 34. [17] Ibid., 53. [18] Russel, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, 234. [19] Dumitru Stăniloae, Teologia dogmatică ortodoxă, 2nd ed., vol. 3 (București: Institutul biblic și de misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, 1997), 295–298. [20] Stăniloae, Teologia dogmatică ortodoxă, 1996, 1:177. [21] Ibid., 1:177–178. [22] Ibid., 1:178. [23] Ibid., 1:184. [24] Ibid. [25] Stăniloae, Iisus Hristos sau restaurarea omului, 58. [26] Ibid., 54–59. [27] Rogobete, O ontologie a iubirii..., 128. [28] Martin Heidegger, “Despre esența temeiului,” in Martin Heidegger. Repere pe drumul gândirii, trans. Thomas Kleininger and Gabriel Liiceanu (București: Politică, 1988), 83, 84. [29] Ibid., 84. [30] Ion Popescu, “Ființă și timp la Martin Heidegger și Dumitru Stăniloae,” in Părintele profesor Dumitru Stăniloae sau consonanța dintre dogmă, spiritualitate și liturghie, ed. Nicolae Răzvan Stan and Lucian Dindirică (Craiova: Mitropolia Olteniei, 2015), 71. [31] Stăniloae, Iisus Hristos sau restaurarea omului, 57. [32] Sandu Frunză, Experiența religioasă în opera lui Dumitru Stăniloae, Athenaeum (ClujNapoca: Dacia, 2001), 164. [33] Ibid., 168. [34] Stăniloae, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, 30. [35] Ibid., 32. [36] Ibid., 33. [14]
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Dumitru Stăniloae, Teologia dogmatică ortodoxă, 2nd ed., vol. 2 (București: Institutul biblic și de misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, 1997), 11–13. [38] Dumitru Stăniloae, Iisus Hristos, lumina lumii și îndumnezeitorul omului, ed. Monica Dumitrescu (București: Anastasia, 1993), 148. [39] Frunză, Experiența religioasă în opera lui Dumitru Stăniloae, 110. [40] Stăniloae, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, 28. [41] Ibid. [42] Ibid., 30. [43] Emil Bartoș, “The Dynamics of Deification in the Theology of Dumitru Stăniloae,” in Dumitru Stăniloae: Tradition and Modernity in Theology, ed. Lucian Turcescu (Iași, Oxford, Palm Beach, Portland: The Center for Romanian Studies, 2002), 215–216. [44] Stăniloae, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, 34. [45] Ibid., 35. [46] Stăniloae, Iisus Hristos, lumina lumii..., 139. [47] Stăniloae, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, 38. [48] Ibid., 97–98. [49] Ibid., 136. [50] Ibid., 35. [51] Ibid., 42, 43. [52] Ibid., 43. [53] Ioan Lascu, “Absurdul în viziunea lui Albert Camus și a părintelui Dumitru Stăniloae,” in Părintele profesor Dumitru Stăniloae sau consonanța dintre dogmă, spiritualitate și liturghie, ed. Nicolae Răzvan Stan and Lucian Dindirică (Craiova: Mitropolia Olteniei, 2015), 218, 221–222. [54] Stăniloae, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, 47. [55] Ibid. [56] Ibid. [57] Ibid., 54. [58] Ibid., 55. [59] Ibid., 59. [60] Ibid., 116. [61] Stăniloae, Poziția domnului Lucian Blaga..., 72–74. [37]
- 120 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.10
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy Dumitru Stăniloae, Spiritualitate și Comuniune în Liturghia Ortodoxă (Craiova: Mitropolia Olteniei, 1986), 37. [63] Stăniloae, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, 119. [64] Ibid., 123. [65] Frunză, Experiența religioasă în opera lui Dumitru Stăniloae, 113. [66] Stăniloae, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, 123–124. [67] Stăniloae, Poziția domnului Lucian Blaga..., 92–96. [68] Dumitru Stăniloae, The Victory of the Cross, Kindle Edition (Oxford: Fairacres Publications, SLG Press, 2014), chap. The Cross Imprinted on the Gift of the World. [69] Ibid., The Cross Imprinted on the Gift of the World. [70] Ibid., chap. The Cross and Job’s Quest for Its Meaning. [71] Stăniloae, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, 126. [72] Marc-Antoine Costa de Beauregard, “Le Cosmos et La Croix,” in Dumitru Stăniloae: Tradition and Modernity in Theology, ed. Lucian Turcescu (Iași, Oxford, Palm Beach, Portland: The Center for Romanian Studies, 2002), 160. [73] Ibid., 161. [74] Stăniloae, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, 114–125. [75] Ibid., 126. [76] Ibid., 127. [77] Ibid., 128. [78] Ibid. [79] Ibid., 133. [80] Ibid., 134. [81] Ibid., 136. [82] Stăniloae, Teologia dogmatică ortodoxă, 1997, 2:137-138. [83] Ibid., 2:144. [84] Stăniloae, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, 198. [85] Ibid., 199, 202. [86] Ibid., 204. [87] Ibid. [62]
http://dialogo-conf.com
[88] [89]
Ibid., 31. Stăniloae, The Victory of the Cross, chap. The Cross as the Mystery of Love.
Bibliography Bartoș, Emil. “The Dynamics of Deification in the Theology of Dumitru Stăniloae.” In Dumitru Stăniloae: Tradition and Modernity in Theology, edited by Lucian Turcescu. Iași, Oxford, Palm Beach, Portland: The Center for Romanian Studies, 2002. Codoban, Aurel. “Ființă și Persoană - glose despre relația dintre filosofia occidentală și religia creștină.” In Persoană și comuniune. Prinos de cinstire preotului profesor academician Dumitru Stăniloae (1903-1993), edited by Ioan I. Ică jr, 230–34. Sibiu: Arhiepiscopia ortodoxă Sibiu, 1993. Costa de Beauregard, Marc-Antoine. “Le Cosmos et La Croix.” In Dumitru Stăniloae: Tradition and Modernity in Theology, edited by Lucian Turcescu. Iași, Oxford, Palm Beach, Portland: The Center for Romanian Studies, 2002. Frunză, Sandu. Experiența religioasă în opera lui Dumitru Stăniloae. Athenaeum. Cluj-Napoca: Dacia, 2001. Heidegger, Martin. “Despre esența temeiului.” In Martin Heidegger. Repere pe drumul gândirii, 446. translated by Thomas Kleininger and Gabriel Liiceanu. București: Politică, 1988. Lascu, Ioan. “Absurdul în viziunea lui Albert Camus și a părintelui Dumitru Stăniloae.” In Părintele profesor Dumitru Stăniloae sau consonanța dintre dogmă, spiritualitate și liturghie, edited by Nicolae Răzvan Stan and Lucian Dindirică, 208–22. Craiova: Mitropolia Olteniei, 2015. Popescu, Ion. “Ființă și timp la Martin Heidegger și Dumitru Stăniloae.” In Părintele profesor Dumitru Stăniloae sau consonanța dintre dogmă, spiritualitate și liturghie, edited by Nicolae Răzvan Stan and Lucian Dindirică, 56–71.
- 121 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y Craiova: Mitropolia Olteniei, 2015. Rogobete, Silviu Eugen. O ontologie a iubirii. Subiect și Realitate Personală supremă în gândirea teologică a părintelui Dumitru Stăniloae. Translated by Anca Dumitrașcu and Adrian Guiu. Plural. Religie. Iași: Polirom, 2001. Russel, Norman. Fellow Workers with God: Orthodox Thinking on Theosis. Foundations Series 5. New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009. ———. The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition. Edited by Gillian Clark and Andrew Louth. Oxford Early Christian Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Stăniloae, Dumitru. Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu. Craiova: Mitropolia Olteniei, 1987. ———. Iisus Hristos, lumina lumii și îndumnezeitorul omului. Edited by Monica Dumitrescu. București: Anastasia, 1993. ———. Iisus Hristos sau restaurarea omului. 2nd ed. Craiova: Omniscop, 1993. ———. Poziția domnului Lucian Blaga față de creștinism și Ortodoxie. Edited by Mihai-Petru Georgescu. București: Paideia, 1993. ———. Spiritualitate și Comuniune în Liturghia Ortodoxă. Craiova: Mitropolia Olteniei, 1986. ———. Teologia dogmatică ortodoxă. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. 3 vols. București: Institutul biblic și de misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, 1996. ———. Teologia dogmatică ortodoxă. 2nd ed. Vol. 3. 3 vols. București: Institutul biblic și de misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, 1997. ———. Teologia dogmatică ortodoxă. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. 3 vols. București: Institutul biblic și de misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, 1997. ———. The Victory of the Cross. Kindle Edition. Oxford: Fairacres Publications, SLG Press, 2014.
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
- 122 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2; 123-130 (2015)
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.11 Constanta, ROMANIA - 2016, March 3
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy
The Transcendence in Lucian Blaga’s Philosophical Thinking Fr. Lect. Stelian Manolache, PhD Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Ovidius University of Constanta Romania
Abstract: On the occasion of the conference on Transcendence and Immanence - a topic buiding on the dialogue between philosophy and theology in the modern and post-modern time -, among the produced subjects, a discussion was held on the role played in respect with this dailogue by the inter-war famous philosophers, such as Lucian Blaga and Dumitru Stăniloaie. Below, we will present the issue of Transcendence according the the philosopher-poet Lucian Blaga’s vision; his vision is tructured into a Trilogy in his work: The Trilogy of Knowledge The Dogmatic Aeon, The Luciferic Knowledge, The Transcendental Censorship - The Trilogy of the Culture - Horizon and Style; The Mioritic Space; The Genesis of the Metaphor and The Meaning of Culture - and The Trilogy of Values - Science and Creation; Magic Thinking and Religion; Art and Value. In these trilogies, the philosopher - poet elaborates, from an original metaphysical point of view, on the dimension of the knowledge of Transcendence - which he would define in in The Horizon of Mystery and Revelation. His vision will be addressed in a new theory of knowledge, which the philosopherpoet Lucian Blaga would distinguish as Paradisiac knowledge and Lucifer knowledge,
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
- 123 -
within a new Metaphysics that would allow access to Transcendence and to the wonders beyond. Postulating the existence of certain faculties of Conscience, his Metaphysics would become, according to the Theory of Transcendence, a must for the human spirit; a proof for his approach would be the great philosophical systems of the world, from the antique to the modern. Keywords: metaphysics, Transcendence, postmodernism, Trylogy, Lucian Blaga, Dumitru Stăniloaie I. Preliminaries In the constellation of the Romanian and European culture, the philosopher-poet, dramaturg and diplomat, theologian and professor Lucian Blaga (b. 9-th May 1895 d. 6-th May 1961) stands in prominence by developing, within the culture and knowledge, an original cosmology of the Neognostic kind. Advancing along the path of other Romanian philosophers and physicists who approached the Transcendence issue - such as Ion Petrovici,
eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928 printISSN: 2457-9297, ISSN-L 2392-9928 ISBN 978-80-554-1208-5
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y author of The Phycho-physical Parallelism in 1905, Ștefan Lupașcu, author of The Antagonism Principle and the Logics of Energy, printed in 1951, or Mihai Drăgănescu, author of The Depths of the Material World printed in 1979 and The Information of the Matter, printed in 1990 - Lucian Blaga would approach the delicate issue of Transcendence within a new theory of knowledge. As a philosopher of culture and knowledge, Blaga would address the new theory on knowledge from the point of view of the idea of mystery or that of our existence within the horizon of mystery [1]; this is the first time in the history of research when one tries to determine the role fulfilled by the idea of mystery in the edification of human knowledge. Mystery is not, for the philosopher-poet, Mystique, but supreme precision and exactness of his philosophical thinking. In this respect, he elaborates several variants of the idea of mystery camouflaged - inclusively - in the Kantian thing in itself; Blaga’s philosophy relies on the two Kantian coordinates of Transcendence and Transcendentality which he (re)interprets from the point of view of the Transcendental Censorship and the Transfigurative Antinomies. If in his Transcendental Censorship, part of his third volume in The Trilogy of Knowledge, the philosopher-poet Lucian Blaga tries to postulate the sense of Metaphysics by appealing to Metaphysics - considering transcendence as being in a dialogue with our conscience, taking the form of The Great Anonymous One who would not concede absolute knowledge - for we would be in danger from the cosmic anarchy raised between Transcendence and Conscience; by means of the transfigurative antinomies, an access into Transcendence becomes possible, by drawing illuminating arrows into the darkness of the Transcendence, for us to revel upon the marvels of the realm beyond, though unable to stride it. Postulating the existence of certain faculties of Conscience which force us into transcending existence in a way, Metaphysics would thus become, in the acceptance of the theory of Transcendence, a necessity of the human spirit. Contrary to Kant’s classical vision on antinomies, which the German philosopher
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
saw as true obstacles against the absolute knowledge, Lucian Blaga would assert that, from the point of view of the dialectic logics, these would not stand for trespassing the rightful thinking under the condition of accepting a new dogmatic method, philosophically (re) valorized, this new perspective being conceived as something irrational / paradoxical - or, in other words, a mystery. In the following text, we will elaborate on this knowledge of Transcendence. II. The Transcendence issue at Lucian Blaga. Poet, philosopher and dramaturg, theologist, teacher and diplomat, Lucian Blaga is the author of a monumental oeuvre, remarkable first of all as a philosopher of Culture and Knowledge. He is the author of a speculative cosmology of a Neo-Gnostik kind. His system is characterized as an attempt to answer the fundamental existential questions “Who am I? Where do I come from? Where do I go? or, To whom do I relate?” starting from the interpretation of the knowledge about the Transcendental Censorship and the Transfigurative Antinomies of the Great Anonymous one - elements that will prove definitory for the edification of the Blagian cosmological system. In A Sketch of a Philosophical Self-presentation [2], Lucian Blaga writes, speaking on the architecture of his philosophical system that it retains a symphonic character, and it is not the system of a sole idea, but it is build much like a church, with several domes. In his development, he comprises several leit-motifs / main themes such as mystery, knowledge, Transcendence, stylistical factors, transfigurative antinomies which are reiterated from one study to another, alternating and rhythmically completing one another, around the core idea of Mystery. His work embraced the form of a Trylogy, circumscribed to the Kantian coordinates of Transcendence [3] and Transcendentality [4] and is structured into the The Trilogy of Knowledge The Dogmatic Aeon, The Luciferic Knowledge, The Transcendental Censorship - The Trilogy of
- 124 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.11
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy the Culture - Horizon and Style; The Mioritic Space; The Genesis of the Metaphor and The Meaning of Culture - and The Trilogy of Values Science and Creation; Magic Thinking and Religion; Art and Value. In these trilogies, the philosopher - poet elaborates, building on certain definitory ideas, on the philosolhy of Culture and Knowledge, from an original meyaphysical perspective, defined in the horizon of Mystery and Revelation. Blaga himself would define his philosophical construction as an abysmal noology, that is, a theory of the unconscious mind, wherein the Transcendence or what lies beyond our world would be discussed within a new theory of knowledge, which, in his Trilogy of Knowledge, he would divide into a paradisiacal knowledge and a Luciferic knowledge. For Blaga, Transcendence can be reached starting from certain faculties and predispositions of the consciousness, using metaphysics which was and stays a permanent leap into Transcendence. Unlike the philosopher Immanuel Kant, for whom Transcendence is identical to the undifferentiated thing itself, for Blaga, Transcendence is a summum of dormant mysteries. These dormant Mysteries are an original point of view of Blaga’s which, by means of the new kind of knowledge which he calls Luciferic, one may know, actualize, make permanent and potentiate them, making possible a passage from the realm of the sacred into the realm of the immanent. The system which Lucian Blaga has conceived has for support axis for his philosophical system, the appeal to the Kantian coordinates of Trancendence and Transcendentiality, which he would (re)consider within the transcendent censorship topic - a topic on which he would debate in connection with the Kantian limits established for the intellect concerning the act of knowing - and of the transfigurated antinomies, corresponding to the antinomies in the Critics of the Pure Reason. Blaga’s originality, compared to the great German philosopher - to whom Blaga is reproaching that he establishes an absolute limit [5] for knowledge in front of Transcendence, incurring on the destiny of the human being by condemning the latter to the
http://dialogo-conf.com
inaction of his revelatory ability - consists in the fact that he argues in favour of the existence of certain faculties and predispositions of the Conscience, which open a path towards Transcendence. Metaphysics would represent precisely such an effort to draw illuminating arrows into the darkness of the Transcendence, for us to revel upon the marvels of the realm beyond. With all these positive assertions, Lucian Blaga says, with the aphorisms in his book The Discobol, that Metaphysics, intending to be an absolute revelation, manages to be, actually, only some creation. In this context, Blaga’s philosophy starts, in his Trilogy of Knowledge, from the postulation of two horizons of knowledge on Transcendence and on Immanence, very different horizons, between which the life of the human beings may occur. These are defined by him as the concrete horizon of the sensible world - in which man, as a practical being, acts in order to preserve oneself and for the aim of the daily comfort - and the horizon of mystery aiming at the revelation of the latter, which can only be fulfilled within the horizon of the spiritual creation. By means of the latter, man aspires to get the meanings of his existence as a creator of myths, religions, art, metaphysics, social and ethical conceptions [6]. Therefore, for Lucian Blaga, all the creations of culture are as many spiritual seals of some structures variable from one community to another and from a historical time to another, being universally present in the human unconsciousness, as some force lines of a stylistic field, specific for the language of each people [7]. This is generated by a combination of abyssal categories which subsequently moulds all creations, the scientific one included. Not incidentally, if Immanuel Kant built his philosophic system starting from Isaac Newton’s modern physics, Lucian Blaga’s philosophy would make one step forwards appealing to the quantum physics and Albert Einstein’s ideas, formulated in 1905, the latter seeing the light as dual, wave and particle in the same time. Concerning the mystery and the issue of Transcendence, in his aforementioned work A Sketch of a Philosophical Self-presentation, Lucian Blaga will confess that, “I have tried for
- 125 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y the first time to establish the role which the idea (of mystery - author’s note) has in the elaboration of the human knowledge. Both in The Dogmatic Aeon and in The Luciferic Knowledge, I have strived to offer a kind of logical analysis, almost mathematical, about the idea of mystery” by means of analogical transfer from Existence to Transcendence. In other words, mystery is a universally present and permanent category, by man’s specific way of excising … the horizon of mystery depending on the human being’s conscience, the latter being identified in the cultural creation, seen as a complementary dimension of the specifically human way of being. Man will only be truly fulfilled, writes Lucian Blaga, within the horizon of mystery because “the human conscience is only fulfilled in the moment when this horizon declares itself into it”. Moreover, by means of his cultural creation, an activity only specific to man, seen as an attempt to reveal the mystery of existence, all human structures will be involved, the organic, the soul, the spiritual, which would not produce culture if they were not serving a certain ontological way of being, that is, in the service of the existence within the horizon of mystery and for its revelation. In other words, a profound difference of ontological nature resides between the two kinds of knowledge [8], meaning the protrusion of the knowledge into the realm of the macrocosmic and microcosmic transcendence, thus overcoming the limits of the existence. If by means of the first kind of knowledge a need is fulfilled, regarding selfpreservation and comfort, in the second one, knowledge springs from the cultural creation, edified by means of the intervention of the aprioric structures which point out at the special quality of man as a creative spiritual being. The former kind of knowledge becomes possible thanks to the categories of the cognitive receptivity, whereas the creation will be modeled by categories of the creative/illuminating spontaneity. If the former belong to the conscience, the latter belongs to the Unconscious, whence the name abysmal for the categories of the knowledge, categories shaping a stylistic matrix specific to each area. If the
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
categories of the cognitive receptivity describe and explain facts, the abysmal categories constitute the frame within which man’s creative thinking and imagination are moving. In other words, mystery is the core of the human existence rising in us with its originary force and as permanence within the comprehensive metaphysical order [9] of a new beginning. But, how can the revealing of mystery be achieved, of the Transcendence par excellence? Effectively, this occurs, only metaphorically [10] and in stylistic patterns [11] / abysmal categories which retain the feature of converting the mystery into the revelatory metaphors of the transcendental censorship and the transfigurated antinomies. An instance of transfigurated antinomy is the Dogma of the Holy Trinity where God is seen as One Being as well as multiplied in Personal manifestation within History. But this theological dogma, says Lucian Blaga, can be deprived of its theological layer leaving only its intellectual structure which can become, by means of a dogmatic formula, a type of universal thinking which also appeared in the precise sciences about Nature [12]. For that, he argues that „over the latter decades, theories of a new structure appeared in different scientific areas. These resulted into a revolution for the scientific thinking while, in the same time, new issues have arisen for philosophy. We do rise to the occasion to confess about the analysis of the dogma in connection with the bewilderment arisen within ourselves by the very theories in question [13]. Among the Blagian transfigurated antinomies [14] offering a transition from the realm of sacred to the world of profane, we may quote: 1- Light and nighttime, where the functions of light in the Blagian work are declared by their cosmological dimension, themselves reveling antinomies such as cosmologic / demiurgic, building on the valor of the light of the first day and the darkness of the non-created; the Paradisiac knowledge and the Luciferic knowledge, „accentuating the latter’s impact on the human being; 2- the archaic village and the idea-village; the former ppearing full of fairytales, magical traditions and customs, the latter appears in the ideatic conception of the
- 126 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.11
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy atemporal village, lying at the core of the world, an axis mundi acquainting with the heavens as far as the transcendent censorship would allow` 3- soul and body; this contrast rather stands for complementarity, for spiritualized love overwhelms the soul, illuminating the sinning body; 4- „the blue dome ” and „the aherontic wave” symbolizes the antinomy heavens/ trancendent and the transience of life, captive in the Great Passage; 5- The Star - Earth” and the ”destiny -star; the planet Earth a representation of the sacred mountain, in solidarity with the planet, and the destiny-star, influencing the human life by means of the zodiac. The transfigurated antinomy is manifest in the detail offered in The Chronicle and the Song of Ages, when the mountain would not help Isidor Blaga, the writer’s father, to get cured from the terrible condition of consumption, incurable at the time. 6 - Poetics of Tranquility - where Blaga stresses that words cannot express the Absolute, the censorship effecting upon the stylistical level. In this thinking context of Blaga’s development, Blaga asserts that there are certain faculties and predispositions of the conscience which open for us a gate toward Transcendence, the Metaphysics [15] becoming, in the acceptance of the Transcendence theory, a must of the human spirit, whence the proof by the great philosophical systems from antiquity to our time. Unlike Kant, who acknowledged the adventure of Reason in order to define Transcendence, as an impossible adventure and incoherent due to antinomies - according to Newton’s vision of Physics - Blaga says, on the contrary, that antinomies are not an argument against metaphysics as violations of a correct dialectical thinking - a fact advanced by quantum physics - thence, the only problem is not discovering and defining them, but preserving the paradoxically spectacular nature of their existence. And again, unlike Hegel - with whom, world is contradictory, therefore antinomical, Transcendence having to be something noncontradictory, something like an absolute identity - Blaga would advance his new point of view by means of examples from microphysics
http://dialogo-conf.com
and parapsychology, these phenomena, dualist in their manifestation, contradicting the laws of the usual logics and continuing to be mysterious, which renders the dogmatic formula with veridicity, as a new way of knowing - whose arrival was heralded within the exact science of Nature [16]. Precisely these theories, of a new structure, led and ascertained our philosopher of Lancrăm in his considerations on the role of the dogma and the minus-knowledge in the revelation of Transcendence. The opposition between the Paradisiac knowledge and the Luciferian / scientific knowledge, between minus knowledge and plus knowledge, will be developed through a new logicalepistemological structure. Unlike Kant, for whom Transcendence was the undifferentiated thing itself, Blaga breaks this Transcendence into an infinity of particular mysteries. In other words, the Paradisiac knowledge, the very existence as is, becomes for Blaga a particular case of Transcendence, by means of the latent mysteries which could be opened by means of the Luciferic/scientific knowledge. By means of this new kind of Luciferic knowledge, the latent mysteries are continuously actualized, permanentized and potentiated. If the Paradisiac knowledge reduces the dynamis of the mystery, the significance of the Luciferic knowledge renders the mysteries [17] with new dual-quality variations, within the new either - or kind of dialectic thinking. This is why the philosopher - poet would be an adept of the dogmatical position, because by means of the latter, the author explores the perspectives of a new way of thinking, which advances non-intuitive ideas defying the actual requirements for inteligibility. He calls such non-inuitive ideas antilogical and antiactual [18]. Through his approach, Lucian Blaga renders knowledge, by means of direction, with a double meaning, as minus-knowledge and plus-knowledge. Unlike the plus-knowledge which aspires to reduce mystery, the minusknowledge aspires to an utmost potentiation of mystery, by exercising that kind of intellect which he calls extatic [19], the radicalized mysteries of the minus-knowledge being irrational because they are antinomic in their very formulation.
- 127 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y Conclusions A first conclusion to be inferred from the aforementioned work is that Lucian Blaga attempts, for the first time in the Romanian philosophy, to draw a forced priximity between Philosophy and Theology in respect with the delicate subject of Transcendence. In edifying his project, he starts from the appeal of the Kantian philosophy, which he tries to overcome starting from the new resulst brought about by the Quantum Physics, which reasons along the dialectical categories either - or. Unlike Kant who had established an absolute limit to knowledge in respect with Transcendence, about whom one should remain silent, Blaga postulates the exisence of certain faculties of the conscience which forces us to transcend the existence, the new metaphysics advanced by Blaga, as a theory of Transcendence, being a necessity for the human spirit. Likewise, - and against the German philosopher, with whom the antinomies become the unachievable leap in the adventure of Reason toward defining Transcendence Blaga says that those antinomies, which he calls transfigurated antinomies, do not stand for trespassing the rightful thinking. In this respect, he would exemplify, throughout his oeuvre, several types of transfigurated antinomies, which are sustained by means of microphysics and parapsychology. What we should notice is that there is no such thing as an enstatic intellect and an extatic intellect, as Blaga thought and, therefore, neither Paradisiacal and Luciferic thinking. Actually, there is not a case for a new kind of knowledge, but for that kind of knowledge stopping in front of another kind of phenomena, i.e. of the transcendent and the transcendental kinds. If Kant can be accused for not having insisted on considering a research unto Transcendence, considering it an undifferentiated thing in itself, Blaga can be accused for that breaking Transcendence into particular mysteries that can be opened by means of the Luciferic kind of knowledge. A final conclusion would be that the poet philosopher Blaga speaks too much about something he should be silent about, more so when it comes to
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
the realm of the Divine who should open itself. In other words, the mystery of Transcendence should not be just scrutinized, but admired and, even more so, lived in. References [1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] [6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
- 128 -
Acad. Al. Surdu. Vocaţii filosofice româneşti, Bucureşti: Ed. Academiei Române, 1995, 112-113. Lucian Blaga, „Schiţa unei autoprezentări filosofice”, Bucureşti, 1938 in Acad. Al. Surdu, Vocaţii Filosofice Româneşti, 112. For Immanuel Kant, the Transcendence it the equivalent of the world beyond, being an absolute limit of knowledge, thence a postulation of the idea of immortality, God and freedom. For the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, Transcendentality stands for what is beyond our world, within the conscience, which has no longer any direct Kantian equivalence. Acad. Al. Surdu, Vocaţii Filosofice româneşti, 107. Mircea Flonta, „Locul istoriei şi filosofiei ştiinţei în sistemul lui Lucian Blaga” (Engl. transl.: The place occupied by History and the Philosophy of Science in Lucian Blaga’s System”, in „Opera Filosofică blagiană” (Engl. transl.: Lucian Blaga’s Philosophical Work), Tg. Mureş: Ed. Ardealul, 2015, 215. Cornel Moraru, „Aformismul ca hermeneutică a misterului” (Engl. transl.: The Aphorism as a Hermeneutic of the Mystery), in Opera Filosofică Blagiană (Engl. transl.: Lucian Blaga’s Philosophical Work), 319; Archie J. Bahm, „Stilul şi problema unităţii şi pluralităţii” (Engl. transl.: The Style and the Problem of Unity!, in Opera Filosofică Blagiană (Engl. transl.: Lucian Blaga’s Philosophical Work), 455. Acad. Al. Surdu, „Actualizare şi potenţare la Lucian Blaga” (Engl. transl.: Actualization and Potentation at Lucian Blaga) and Ştefan Lupaşcu, in the „Izvoare filosofice” Journal, nr 1-3, Tg. Mureş, 2006. Vasile Muscă, „Metafizica lui Lucian Blaga în ipostaza unui ’’nou început” (Engl. transl.: Lucian Blaga’s Metaphysics in the stance of a “new beginning”), in Opera Filosofică
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.11
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy Blagiană (Engl. transl.: The Blagian Philosphic Work), 361. [10] Rainer Schubert „Metafora şi tehnica” (Engl. transl.: Metaphor and Technique), in Opera Filosofică Blagiană (Engl. transl.: The Blagian Philosphic Work), 503. [11] Archie J. Bahm, „Stilul şi problema unităţii şi pluralităţii, in Opera Filosofică Blagiană (Engl. transl.: The Blagian Philosphic Work), 455. [12] Mircea Flonta, „Locul istoriei şi filosofiei ştiinţei în sistemul lui Lucian Blaga” (Engl. transl.: The Place of History and Philosophy of Science in Lucian Blaga’s System) , in Opera Filosofică blagiană (Engl. transl.: The Blagian Philosphic Work), 218. [13] Ibidem, p. 218 [14] Zenovie Cârlugea, „Lucian Blaga. Dinamica antinomiilor imaginare” (Engl. transl.: Lucian Blaga. The Dynamics of the Imaginary Antinomies), II-nd edition, Iaşi: Ed. TipoMoldova, 2013. [15] Vasile Muscă, „Metafizica lui Lucian Blaga în ipostaza unui ’’nou început” (Engl. transl.: Lucian Blaga’s Metaphysics in the stance of a “new beginning”), in Opera Filosofică Blagiană (Engl. transl.: The Blagian Philosphic Work), 361. [16] Mircea Flonta, „Locul istoriei şi filosofiei ştiinţei în sistemul lui Lucian Blaga” (Engl. transl.: The Place of History and Philosophy of Science in Lucian Blaga’s System) , in Opera Filosofică Blagiană (Engl. transl.: The Blagian Philosphic Work), 218. [17] Ibidem, p.217 [18] Ibidem, p. 217. [19] Ibidem, p. 217.
http://dialogo-conf.com
- 129 -
Session 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in the Philosophy and Theology
This page was intentionally left blank
Session 3 The notion of “Immanence” in Philosophy and Theology
This page was intentionally left blank
DIALOGO
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.12 Constanta, ROMANIA - 2016, March 3
2.2; 133-150 (2015)
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy
The philosophic paradigm as basis for early Christian doctrine of God’s immanence Fr. Lect. Cosmin Tudor CIOCAN, PhD Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Ovidius University of Constanta Romania cosmin.ciocan@univ-ovidius.ro
Abstract: In philosophy of religion the term of Immanence is mostly applied to GOD in contrast to the divine Transcendence. This relation, as we will see here, it is not far from the truth since one cannot be without the other, however they are not to be put in contrast, but in conjunction. The one-sided insistence on the immanence of God, to the exclusion of His transcendence, leads to Pantheism, just as the one-sided insistence upon His transcendence, to the exclusion of His immanence, leads to Deism. These two can be separated, but the consequences are great for human knowledge and society; it is the two taken together that result in, and are necessary to Theism. But from the least complicated idea that even the name of God is a manifestation of His immanence contrasting with Deus absconditus, whose existence and name cannot be known or thought, theology and religion in general need to regard immanence of God as crucial for the acts of worship. What are the philosophical background for Christian theology to imply the immanence characteristic for God’s existence related to His creation? – This is the main question the present work tries to answer as an overview.
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
- 133 -
Key words: immanence, God, worldly, religion, pantheism, deism, theism, philosophy, indwelling, omnipresence, differentness, to pervade, I. Introduction about philosophic ideas on immanence Immanence? This is maybe the most interesting tool any religion would like to have at its reach and, moreover, all religious people would enjoy having …Immanence would give them the confirmation of their belief; a worldly presence of God or anything from ‘above’ is totally the embodiment of religion main desideratum: God among His believers. Certainly this desideratum is a belief every religion has in its core doctrine, but unfortunately all these ideas about man cohabiting with his Creator are not aiming for this world, but for ‘another’ one. This cohabitation is mostly possible in the afterlife, for numerous reasons, each highlighted by one religion or another; e.g. the world is unworthy of God’s presence, man cannot see God and live, man-world are sinful, man has to become more than that, a spiritual, enlightened
eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928 printISSN: 2457-9297, ISSN-L 2392-9928 ISBN 978-80-554-1208-5
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y being in order to cohabitate with God, etc. Still, all these are maybe additional reasons besides what we can call as the main argument of all: God is transcending to this world and He cannot be incarcerated into any form of this world. ‘God’, as we all call the entity that have created heaven and earth, even if It is worshiped for this act of creation – and such act of devotion, gratitude and recognition is a normal one, found also to animals or plants – It is also a different, outa worldly being, one that stands against anything we know and can imagine in analogy with this universe. The crucial difference between Godthe Creator and Its creation is that He cannot be as His creation, due to the fact that he makes everything in or out of him. Either way we cannot be as He is; being inside Him, makes Him larger – and we already know that quantum’s laws differ from a superior level of existence to a lower one; being outside of Him, this also leave us existential different to what is out there. See, the problem in all these myriad of speeches and assumptions is that always HE is out of the world, indefeasible, peremptory, conclusively beyond everything our reach, mindly, physically or cognitively. What is more devastating for religious people is that philosophers assert that God has to be different in any kind from us, therefor even spiritual we cannot ‘touch’ His presence or understand His existence. But, in this case, religion became utterly superfluous: it has no sense in loving, talking and praying to a God that is so emphatically different from what we (can) know. Moreover, the moral itself stands on a thicker ground since a dialogue between man and his supposed Creator is in fact impossible. The morality without revelation is merely the man’s projection of his thinking and imagination; there is no “way” of serving God and live after His Commandments if none is capable of communicating with the other: Neither God, nor man can talk, listen or feel the other one in any possible way. The sentiment of gratitude is the only, lastly reason for religion’s existence, but it is not enough for making any discussion, debate or assumption that one religion is better than the other, since none has the ability and real possibility of making contact with the Creator.
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
And also, facing the plethora of religious acts of faithfulness cannot make this peremptorydifferent-God nothing else but an impuissant spectator – no guidance, no rewarding, and no communion. Furthermore, by the doctrine of divine immanence religion fashions “its terminus a quo—the doctrine which beholds God first of all present and active in the world, and sees in natural law not a possible substitute for Him, but the working of His” [1]. Through this blinded road of neglecting immanence as godly characteristic we are but doomed to a fortuitous, haphazard life – either believing or denying God (as principle of existence) without His indwelling into our world and life we cannot have a right way of living it . Immanence? – Indeed, religion would be utterly incomplete without it. On the other hand Christianity is a religion emerged at the edge of two influential culture, Judaism and Hellenism. Even if its system of thinking and expressing its belief was almost entirely influenced by philosophy, the core of it was directed by revelation and faith in Christ as Son of God, so we cannot ever assume that Christianity is just another system of philosophical thinking in combination with spiritual presumptions. What we can presume in this regard is that the Church Fathers have been influenced by philosophy of the moment in major parts and this makes a considerable philosophical background for the Christian creed. How do we see this ‘philosophical background’? For sure this influence was not intended to make them believe in a certain god; in return they used the philosophical conceptions and system of thinking to structure the mental visualization of God they had already believed in. This is the aim of the present paper, showing the philosophical background of Christian early thinking of God’s immanence. II. Preliminar reasons for taking on this topic In order to speak about God’s immanence we should understand first few preliminary elements and the way in which they are accepted by the
- 134 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.12
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy philosophical thinking. While in modern world ‘religion’ is thought as „a detachable aspect of personal (and even of national) identity… as something largely personal or private” [2], a problem of if you believe or not, in antiquity religion was a structural, axiological function and the only question was who to believe in, show respect for and devotion to one deity or another. The choice of a certain deity was driven by the self-conceptualization of the world-mandeity relation, but the sentiment of worship was almost ontological to everyone; not-believing was an act of denying your-self as human and being. That is why denying other’s belief was not a usual conduct in that world filled with gods, one for every particular side of life and worshiping a single god was also unacceptable. Only with Christianity spread came the Judaist pretention of a one, single-existent and absolute God, and the denial of any other conceived divinity. Started as a cult of ethnical designation, Christianity had the spirit of minority, casted and rejected group, and this had many things to say about their way of living, believing and worshiping their only existent God. A rational reproof was made that theology – as a rational discourse on the nature of divinity – was not conceived “in temples or around altars, but within the ancient academy” [3], as a special branch of philosophy, and this give philosophers the right to treat theology as their doing and rightful activity, not to one of religious thinkers – “First Philosophy, Theology, or as we call it Metaphysics” [4]. “God” can be either a divinity to be worshiped or “a concept as a part of a larger, ideally coordinated and rational system” [5]. The difference – for as far as we are concerned – between these two ways of thinking God, while the later tends to be “radically stable and transcendent, immaterial, perceptible only through mind”, the first needs to be incorporated, necessarily immanent and sensibly touchable to become an object of worship. And, to be honest, there is no (concept of a) ‘God’ for philosophers that deserve to be worshiped, just as well as for believers there is no need for any conceptualization to believe and
http://dialogo-conf.com
worship God. III. Philosophical backgrounds of early Christian thinking over immanence Historically speaking early Christianity may be described by a parallel series of influence. “The Roman world provided the outer circle – the governmental, legal, and economic context. The Greek world provided the cultural, educational, and philosophical context. The Jewish world was the matrix of early Christianity, providing the immediate religious context” [6], obviously the greatest dependence it ever had, and so on. From all these backgrounds I have chosen the cultural one, which conducted the Church Fathers to understand and express God as a being immanent to world-creation. Of course this is not enough to explain and defend the truth and validity of Christianity as a ‘way of worship’ Christ, and not aiming to transform it into a solid, rational and sober explanation of the concept of ‘God’. In order of explaining the terminology most important it is to find out how is actually understood the immanence in philosophy in order to see if this concept fits the conception of God of the Christian faith, biblical and patristic. Immanence, meaning “existing or remaining within” generally offers a relative opposition to transcendence, that which is beyond or outside. Immanent (Latin in manere, to remain in) is the quality of any action which begins and ends within the agent. Thus, the vital action, as well in the physiological as in the intellectual and moral order, is called immanent, because it proceeds from that spontaneity which is essential to the living subject and has for its term the unfolding of the subject’s constituent energies. It is initiated and is consummated in the interior of the same being, which may be considered as a closed system. [7] This understanding over our material world in general raises a set of legitimate questions, such as is this system so shut in as to be self-sufficient and incapable of receiving anything from without? — or can it
- 135 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y enrich itself by taking up elements which its environment offers and which are at times even necessary, as nourishment is to the immanent activity of the body? This is the problem which the philosophies of immanence propose and attempt to solve, not only in respect to man considered as a particular being, but also in respect to the universe considered as a whole. It is, indeed, with reference to this latter aspect that the controversy arose in ancient times and it have never ended with a solid, proper and universal accepted solution since the answers came from metaphysics and theology, fields ambiguous and suspicious of subjectivity. A. The term of “immanence” in various ancient philosophical views For the ancient philosophy everything stood under the sign of becoming and of the existential movement; for Parmenides (510- ... BC) “nothing is a unit and something in itself, you could never assign precisely something, in any way it would be... for there is never anything, but it always becomes” [8]. In this context the many questions raised by philosophers - e.g. There is something else than the world that becomes? There is something to be, i.e. which is always the same? If not, could we know something in-itself? and so on - have created all necessary conditions to postulate something’s still, eternal, transcendent and yet remaining in all things. There is this something universal, equal to itself and immutable, which should be the benchmark both for a true and accurate knowledge (epistemology), as for the being itself and for the existence of everything budding (ontological). Because things and phenomena in our world were perceived as both contradictory and opposing – especially to man – all these observations led to the conclusion that the world is led by a certain relativism, and the elements of the universe are in a constant battle. Heraclitus (535-480 BC) believes that all these opposites are necessary, in spite of the discordant forces between them, and that this fight is creative, being immanent to the universe.
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
He calls this balance the “invisible harmony of the universe”, which it considers “stronger than the visible” one. Heraclitus opens understanding to transcendent compared and connected with the immanent world speaking of the One as divine and wise: “The One, the only wise, wants and does not want to be called by the name of Zeus.” Divinity is the universal reason (Aoyoq), the universal law immanent in all things that raises all things into an imitation, and causes permanent change in the universe according to universal law [9]. This conception of a universal ordinator-of-all Reason will appear in the system of Stoics’ thinking, who borrowed ideas of their cosmology from Heraclitus. [10] But before Heraclitus, Thales (625-545 BC) states that “all are full of gods”, i.e. a plural, mobile divine, with contradictory manifestations, sublime or ridiculous, understood to be present everywhere, immanent to the world and its phenomena, boundlessness in their diversity. [11] No one will be able to detach from this assumption of divine omnipresence in things, beings and phenomena, since until Aristotle it had represented the being of which and in which all are made. The conception of the divine transcendence was not clear yet, so the remanence of the divine being in all things, designed for the moment to be conceived only in its immanence side, was considered as a pantheistic conception and philosophy that has conceived it as a naturalist-animist one. Pythagoras (570-500 BC) moves the gravity center of the visible world on the shoulders of material elements – water, fire, earth – on a more harmonized element of the world, found in all the observable structures, more abstract even than apeiron, the number. Through this abstracting and replacement of the use of the “components for defining the physical universe (water, air, fire), or with indeterminate mixture of them (apeiron), but with quantitative abstraction par excellence – the number – associated with quantitative proportions corresponding to harmony” [12] a new dimension of the transcendence become visible.
- 136 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.12
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy Along with Socrates (470-399 BC) the immanent principles of the world gained more importance. In a dialogue with the priestess Diotima Socrates is challenged to show whether the sheer beauty belongs to the things or is only assigned by others? In other words is this beautiful, the absolute essence of beauty, an essence “separate” from things or not? Coming through the interpretation of Plato’s, the explanation assumes that this key-beautiful is not only a simple concept, but has objective reality [13]. But this debate gave birth to the coexistence of transcendent and immanent, in the way that the Beautiful itself or the beautiful absolute is “separate” as it is real, subsisting, not in the sense that there is a world of its own, spatially separated from things. Thus, according to the essence of Plato, beauty is a reality beyond the subjective reality of the abstract concept – a subsistent reality, genuine and independent from particular. But, according to the same theory, if the essence of platonic is real, it must be somewhere, but not it is within us – as a result of perception and contemplation of ours, because this reality does not disappear with our disappearance – it is in fact within the flower that exists outside us. In other words, it is both transcendent and immanent, inaccessible to senses, perceived only by the intellect.
however unreal, to that everything is tending: it is not only an epistemological principle, but also - in a sense somewhat unclear - an ontological principle, a principle of being. Therefore, it is real in itself and subsistence [15]. “This is the reason why Eastern Christians theologians have been seduced into platonic thinking more than the Aristotelian did, when they explained the presence and involvement of God in the created world (Sf. Gregory of Nyssa, Sf. Maxim the Confessor, Dionysius, Sf. Justin the Philosopher († 165), Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria († 215216), the great Alexandrine theologian Origen († 254), Methodius of Olimp († 311) ) [16].
B. The debates between the two principles in „the problem of universals” [14]: The transcendent divinity and its immanent critic
In the debate on (1) the link between being (general) and things (concrete) and (2) the (final) form of a thing, both these two great philosophers came with an own theory by which they were made familiar and remained noted in the history of philosophy. The One, the Good and the Beautiful are essentially identical for Plato, and the intelligible world of forms owe their being somehow to the One. The One itself, though immanent to the forms, is transcendent in that it cannot simply be identified only with forms, for it was „the Platonic belief in preexistence of Forms and παραδειγματα the basis of which the particular things of the empirical universe had been fashioned, together with the biblical belief, at any rate concerning the fashioning of humanity, that God made man in accordance with his own image and likeness” [17].
When it comes to the Good as a principle of existence, Plato (428-348 BC) develops his realistic position about the subsisting essences, “separate” or transcendent. “We should not assume that Good exists as an object among objects, like the sun exists as an object among other objects.” On the other hand, because Plato states it clear that Good gives existence to the objects of knowledge and, as such, the unifying and all-inclusive principle of essential order while he himself goes even beyond essential being in dignity and power - it is impossible to conclude that good it is a simple concept or even a non-existent purpose, a teleological principle,
Here is born this idea of universal (forms) which, although they intellectually have as support for knowledge the contact, sensitive items, they do not reside in them, but overexist or they have subsistence for themselves. Between the two “worlds”, separate existences, there are an inseparable link, at least in regard of the sensitive objects participating through imitation to the world of ideas. Thus arose Plato’s theory of Forms, but it has placed them, which are the cause of the essence of things (and, in a way, the very cause), outside the things whose essences are [18]. Through the use of terms like “imitation” and “participation”,
http://dialogo-conf.com
- 137 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y namely Plato clearly suggests the existence of a certain formal immanent element, a principle of relative stability in the material things [19]. Contrariwise, Aristotle disagrees with his teacher on these forms that are not fully explained in the Platonic theory regarding their relationship with the things themselves. Moreover, Platon by chorismos (Greek = separation), avoided to point the realization of the form or essence immanent of the Good as the final cause of material substance. Therefore, along with Aristotle we have before a deeper understanding of the wealth and merits of the material world, because, through his doctrine of substantially immanent, he is trying to achieve a synthesis of the realities of the One and the Multiple – to a multiplicity of elements within a species being found its unity in the possession of a specific similar form, although this ID is not a numerical one. [20] Disagreeing with this separation – between the beautiful thing, concrete, individual and absolutely beautiful, seen by Plato as a true subsistence – Aristotle (384-322 BC.) presents the essence (form) as immanent to things. Noting the paradox of understanding and life – that science has as its object the universal, but nature is, effecting immediately and directly, made up of individual things or individuals: e.g. the medical science considers the “generic man”, but the one who actually suffers and should be cured it is not the “Man” but only Socrates or Callias or Maria [21] – in essence Aristotle definitively links the essence and the forms of being with the substance of things. The Being (ούσία) is what the thing is in himself, is the ‘what-is-it’ of the think, instead the form (είδος) is both the configuration of the thing, and also its teleological cause, the purpose toward which it aims and is made for [22]. This way the (final) form of the thing is immanent to it because this is the ontological goal toward which aims and by whom is attracted for the fulfillment of the purpose of which it was created (e.g. the pupa of a butterfly has the potency to fly). It is true that there may be a lot of accidental factors that disrupt or stop the thing to reach its
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
final form, but that does not mean he was not attracted to it, so Aristotle believes that this form is included as virtuality ( δύναμις) or potency in each individual’s matter, and the force with which it is drawn toward the fulfillment of its purpose, to the update of the latent potencies (ενέργεια) is just the need of the thing to attain its immanent perfection (εντελέχεια). „Only in the act itself (en energeia) is the thing perfect. The goal toward which the activity moves is the entelechy (complete reality) of the thing.” [23] Thus the attraction towards perfection is kept together with countless cases of unexpressivity of the update virtuality: “Each thing seeks its destiny, achieves its purpose, becomes what it is, and, to some extent, achieve its full form.” [24] There is a goal toward which everything is moving – for example an acorn to become an oak. Nevertheless Aristotle foresees the Being - inseparable from matter - as having the quality of being transcendent (χωριστόν), to be separate, to become autonomous from the rest – free from accidental individualized agents – of matter. The Matter, in Aristotle’s conception, is a full virtuality, because it can become anything, without being in a determined way, nothing. Ontologically speaking, matter can exist separate from properties, forms and updates; epistemologically though, it cannot be perceived or known detached from any form due to its indeterminacy. Only in union with a form (σύνολον, the individual compound) may matter be the subject for knowledge, but even this knowledge is not complete, because, out of the final perfect shape updated, the intermediate steps are not the essence of Being, but what it can be known under the incidence of present and sensation. But these contextual knowledge do not define the individual, but they lead it to the fulfillment of its ultimate, immanent form; the contextual steps are not essentially immanent, but accidental, external, circumstantial. Το τι ην ειναι („ce-este-lucrul-însine“, the essence, quod quid erat esse, what a thing was to be) will bring serious and fervent discussions on a certain aspect of theology, later
- 138 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.12
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy so controversial and almost impossible to reach with mind: how could the divinity (transcendent, or at least different) “mix” (blend) with the material, contingent and perishable world? How could (divine) things that exists outside the sensitive and even ration, mingle with them? What bond may exist between them? Plato tried to explain using terms like “participation” or “imitation”, but Aristotle replies that “to declare the forms as models <παραδείγματα> and say that other things participate in them means utter empty words and to call for poetic metaphors” [25]. The answer is not of simple type because the consequences are equally demanding in both cases. Whether we accept the Aristotelian assumption and say that forms (beings things) are not separate from things or the Platonic idea that forms are models of sensory things, we will end up either taking pantheism or deism. The compromise conclusion would be to find / postulate an agent to trigger the movement of things participating to the eternal forms. Without the existence of such agent things participating to the eternal forms remain void of becoming. Lucretius (Lucretius, 99-55 i.Hr), for example, would consider that Nature had provided her own immanent “model for creation”, so that the “pattern for making things” was not to be attributed any longer to divine agency of some sort, much less to what Ovid called “the providence of God” [cura dei], even if this phrase is taken as an “almost impersonal conception of the ‘Creator of the world.’” [26] For Aristotle, however, this agent is the νους (ποιητικός) or the “active intellect”; it, although belonging to the divine, is equal transcendent (it has to think about itself, or it would not be perfect), as well as imanent to creation, helping it to consciously strive towards an ideal benchmark [27]. Another idea, adjacent to this one, is that “the Divinity of nous is not a melancholy evocation of an immemorial past, when man had lived in familiarity with gods (cf. Plato, Philebus. 16 c), but instead (is) his effort to find his lost origin, in other words the future of man always open, consisting of mimic the divinity, perfecting himself and the world around them” [28]. However, it extends in a pantheistic
http://dialogo-conf.com
evaluation as shown by the religious method of contemplation. “Contemplation, the perfect expression of life and human happiness, by which man reaches divine heights, is not hence, in Aristotle’s ethics, an activity projected in a world of transcendence”, but the act exclusively rational, which, realizing the coincidence with his intellect, man access to his full humanity, “even if, paradoxically, being truly human is to update what is divine in him” [29]. Aristotle’s conception of a ‚God’ was affected by his understanding over universe. While the universe is perfect, everlasting and human centered, his „God” was a part of the structure of reality, at its pinnacle to be sure, but not outside it or its cause, not a Creator in the biblical meaning, and definitely not a person exercising providence or revealing his will [30]. The only idea connecting Aristotle’s think of a God with Christians’ is the related prime mover, relation sometimes overstressed and we have to know why that is. This First Cause that has produced the first everlasting circular motion is the „Unmoved Mover, an eternal substance, purely actual, with no possibility of change or motion, purely immaterial, since matter is potency…capable of causing motion (which Plato’s Forms, Aristotel says, were not)” [31]. If this is unchanging, immaterial and fully actual, Aristotle posits it can only be one kind of thing, a Mind. It is self-sufficient, for it didn’t needed any external object to be the object of its thought; „its thought must be intuitive, immanent, directed entirely to an object within itself… in fact, the only object which it can have is its own thinking” [32]. Upon this pattern of thinking the eternal Mind, one final conclusion can be postulated “that the Divine Mind has no knowledge of anything outside itself” so it cannot think of anything else and also it cannot move, as an active movement, nothing, even the first universal motion. And here Aristotle has introduced the notion of entelechy, for Divinity is the object of love and desire for all things and they headed towards the Unmoved Mover in a desire of imitating its perfection, in striving to acquire the most perfect possible actuality and complete realization of their form. Therefore, the Divine Mind is immanent for itself and
- 139 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y transcendent to everything else, but the need for realization of form is a condition immanent to matter and all its objects. This statement of Aristotle’s doctrine of causality and perfection of God will be retrieved later on in Christian thought for it led to several attributes of ‘God’, such as singularity for movement center (in despite of the other 55 Unmoved Movers or Intelligences invented in Metaphysics), auto-sufficiency, impassible and so on. The links between sensible things do not simply reduce only to mechanics or chemistry; they are much deeper and get to combine even internal forces, substantial [33], these links are designed to create movement, the Aristotelian metaphysics core. “Everything that is subject to change (μεταβολή) is in a state of transition, of passing in time from the potency to the appropriate entelechy; once completed, the movement (κινεσις, cease its existence, making room for rest and to the form finally achieved.” [34] As it regards to humans, he moves according to the overall Aristotelian teleology, in a threefold aspect [35]: circumscribed to the contingent world with an immanent finality; circumscribed to the political world (polis) for the collective good; and, as a rational being, he tends toward the supreme landmark, toward divinity, to complete its own fulfilment. Unlike the platonic Good, with self-existence, abstract and transcendent, the good professed by Aristotle is established as the absolute goal, toward which everything strives, but also immanent in all things and beings [36]. We have to consider this debate between the two great philosophers as an existential one, as well as an ontological and eschatological one. From the Latin word principium and its Greek counterpart αρχη could mean either “beginning” in the chronological sense, “first principle” in the epistemological sense, or “ground of being” in the metaphysical sense [37]. Another limitation of Aristotelian understanding is the finitude with which the immanent existence self-surrounds. Having nothing outside their existence, the material things doesn’t last forever, and where there is
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
generation and movement, there is necessary a limit [38]. But this limit is thus at the same time a step forward compared to his precursor, Aristotle managed to establish the reality of the sensible world on a more solid base, by the immanent teleology doctrine, that of the movement of all concrete, sensitive things to the full use of their potentials [39]. Regarding knowledge it is done only on the universality of things, for no one, though studying individuals, does not state general truths upon the individual, but the species. Therefore Aristotle accepts the Platonic position of the universal existence in individuals, but not as an existence itself. This universal element is identified as sensitive and vital immanence of thing which, together with its material, forms that thing and is the intelligible principle of that object [40]. We cannot conceive the universal than through individual, the one and only true existence, but the individual is truly a substance of some kind, because its “universal element, the form of thing, that the mind abstract it and conceives as the formal universality” [41]. Because this universal from things is the divine pattern upon they have been made, especially because thinking is made upon the universal, Aristotle supports Plato’s conclusion that the mind-intellect (νους) is divine, immanent and active in the world. She perceives the Being therefore the individual is not the Being, but the universal is. While the individual changes, gets destroyed, the universal is immutable – the specie remains when the individual is no longer. From this stems both that the Absolute Being is the model cause of essences, and also that it is intelligible, perceptible and identifiable for the human reason. By entelechy’s theory, of immanent, substantial form, he brings a substantial contribution to the philosophy of nature that he sees as a hierarchy of species, and also corrects Plato’s conception of the idea that “immaterial form is intelligible, that the absolute act is an absolute intellect” [42]. We know that Plato’s thought had a revival about the beginning of the Christian era [43], but Aristotle’s thinking had a great influence over the Arab philosophers,
- 140 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.12
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy and the Christian theology from the end of XII century, especially through Tomas Aquino work and his successors, spent a lot of time trying to adapt the Christian thinking to correspond with Aristotle’s theories. C. Other profound influence on Christian thought Another source of inspiration for Fathers and Christian writers was the thinking and writings of Stoicism (301 BC - 150 AD), according to which the world is based on material discernible principles, but with fire as stimulating element and divine reason (logos) – a visible influence from Heraclitus of Ephesus’ ideas. Appeared in the early Hellenistic period (late fourth century BC), Stoicism was extended to the imperial age of ancient Rome (III century AD) [44]- It was the first source of absolute immanence. The Destiny was the form of world’s organization and of each thing or event; even if this understanding led to fatalism, it justified though an acknowledgment of the existence of an invincible power, that “orders and governs everything in the universe”, by being the “world reason or the law of all things”. This implacable fatalism overcomes the chance and chaos of previous thinking and, even if leaves no room for human free will, he demonstrates the immutable lawfulness standing in the nature of things over which there is no other control than the law itself and the raison d’être of the thing. The Stoics rejected not only the Platonic doctrine of the transcendent universal, but also the immanent universal from Aristotle’s theory. For them there is only the particular and our knowledge is a knowledge of particular things objectively existing. What enchained the particular objects and actions was the Destiny, an irresistible power, implacable designed as a chain of causes and effects, that “orders and governs everything in the universe”, the “world reason or the law of all things” [45]. The active principle is the divine intellect or divinity, which, in his providence, has done everything for the good of man. And because the whole - nature - cannot be more imperfect
http://dialogo-conf.com
than one of its part - man – nature itself receives conscience, God being the world’s conscience, a conscience that is also material as its substrate. „The universe is like a giant body with its own leading part. All parts of the universe are connected; thus, what happens in one place is affected by what happens elsewhere.” [46] All the elements of which the material world appeared from proceed from divinity and, at some point, dissolve back into it; the Divinity’s body is matter, subtler and denser, but that from which it is made also the world. [47] “The matter is impregnated, infused with the universal rationality, called Destiny by some, immanent into it like the seminal virtue in a seed.” [48] Thus Stoicism is positioned transversely to the spiritual doctrine of a transcendent God, completely different from the created world and positioned accordingly beyond it. For philosophers like Zeno of Cittium or Epicur God is always immanent, equaling God with the totality of the universe, deeply contrary with Christianity. This is also the principal difference between the Platonic demiurge and the Stoic god, his immanence: „he exerts his providential activity from within the matter it molds and manipulates” [49], being the material, formal, productive, and final cause of everything, its “seminal logos” (gr. λογοι σπερματικοι or logoi spermatikoi). The idea of these rationes seminales will be further developed to Neoplatonism and incorporated into Christian thought through writers like Athenagoras of Athens, Tertullian, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine of Hippo, Bonaventure, and Albertus Magnus. After Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, absolute immanence regains its strength through stoics, especially Zeno of Cittium (333-262 BC), who gives it its clearest expression, matched only by the philosophy of Spinoza, called the “prince of philosophers” by G. Deleuze for his theory of immanence. Anyways, the rejection of stoicism and epicureans was a constant for Christian writers at that time and for that particular reason. Still it provided strong concepts for Christian theology, such as Logos, Spirit, and conscience. [50] For
- 141 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y example, Clement of Alexandria, a consequent follower of the Platonic ideas, refines the concept of Logos, the principle of true Christian gnosis, and condemns the immanence of God the way stoics saw it, teaching of a transcendent God, self-sufficient and abstract, unable to be thought, impossible for human power of expressing God [51]. Yet, besides the general rejection of stoic’s idea of a god, the conception of his immanence was preserve in bigger part in the Christian cataphatic theology, especially when Neoplatonism resume the ancient debate of universals later on. For example, Origen will retrieve the Stoic expression of logoi spermatikoi, unfold their materiality and use it as ‘ideas within the mind of God’ and ‘powers of the Logos’ that are immanent in the world [52]. D. Questions and limits for God’s immanency. The ‚Body’ of God Given the immanence of God in Matter, the first question arises of how God is to be distinguished from matter? This question requires a special look into the physical mechanism by which God is present in matter. For Epicureans and Stoics “God crosses over the whole matter” [53] and the nature is absorbed by divinity since god has a material body, and his spirit indwells in the whole universe [54]. This is the particular aspect of the Stoic’s idea of immanence that must be highlighted here. It is possible that it hasn’t been understood like that at the time Christian thinkers got in contact with it. In general, the Stoic god was bound to be material and to proceed from the matter, but “this reductive materialist view does not coincide with what the Stoics actually claim or with anything they are logically committed to. On their view, which is anti-materialist, both god and matter are bodies (σώματα, n.n.), but nevertheless they form an irreducible pair.” [55] In conclusion, their particular view is neither a materialist monism – god one with the matternature –, nor a strict dualism, distinguishing god from matter as two different realms as in Platonism. The point is that corporeality and immanence in matter are features of the Stoic
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
‘god’ that have no clear trace in earlier Platonism. Having bodies (Σώματα), and not that that they are ‘incorporeal’, (άσομάτους) is a case for distinguishing between principles and elements, where it is clear that the elements are bodies with a form, and the principles being devoid of any form [56]. In this regard Zeno argued that ‘that which is devoid of body . . . cannot act or be acted upon’ (Cicero, Ac. Post. 1. 39) as another reaction, this time to god’s impassivity and selfsufficiency projected by the Aristotle’s MindCause. This extra argue has to be assumed since Stoics made a distinction between ‘solid bodies’ (three-dimensional, geometrical entities) and ‘incorporeal entities’, a body ‘that which acts or is acted upon’. In the latter category there are also god or reason as ‘efficient body’ or active (involving ‘power’, διναμις), and matter as ‘passive one’, along with other incorporeal bodies, e.g. void and place. This is also a logical reaction to Platonic incorporeal entities, which says that the capacity of acting or being acted upon is a capacity of the being in general, not of bodies. “I suggest that everything which has a power of any kind, either to produce a change (ποιειν) in anything of any nature or to be affected (παθειν), even in the least degree by the slightest cause, though it be only on one occasion, has real existence (οντως ειναι)” [57] . The bottom line is that the world (Kosmos) is a coherent organism, interpenetrated by Nature (phisics) and God – a pattern of meaning that is like a ‘designing fire’ or light, giving rise to the concepts of divinity immanent in the universe and cosmic order conducted by It moreover since Stoic god hasn’t two parts, a body and a spirit. In their thinking god’s body is spiritual, with ethereal constitution, for god is spirit, incorporeal and it indwells the material body of universe. This also makes the particular conception of Stoics over human soul, conception also drawn from them by Christian thinkers. “The human soul is in some degree derived and drawn from a source exterior to itself. Hence we understand that outside the human soul there is a divine soul from which the human soul is sprung” [58]. But this is not the best part of the conception on human soul, instead they figured that it is a body it-self that
- 142 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.12
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy pervades the mortal body. The human souls are made of the heavenly substance, aether (air and fire), making it a bodily (corporeal) substance, which was believed to be a hot, fiery breath [59] [pneuma] that infused the physical body. This was a crucial concept of Stoic both physics and psychology, took as it was by Christians. Unlike atomists that fragmented the universe and its matter into tiny pieces spread in the void, the Stoics ‘argued for a continuum theory which denied the existence of void in the cosmos. The cosmos was seen as a single continuum of pneuma-charged substance’ [60]. So the soul-body assures the life, the energy and keeping-together the material body, as Pnevmagod is doing for the body of the universe. The immanence of both soul for human body and god for universe was in fact the only logical conclusion drawn from the observation that everything is kept together. Also the qualitative difference between individual substances, such as between a rock and a pool of water, is determined by the degree of the tensional motion of the pneuma pervading the substance. Understanding this immanence of god and soul into matter and body will make us easier to comprehend the way Christian Fathers like Gregory Palamas (1296–1359) when formulate the central principle of Eastern Orthodox theology, the real distinction between the essence (ousia) and the energies (energeia) of God and how these energies pervade the creation. We know that this Christian teaching of God’s immanence unto the whole creation was a case of heretical and unacceptable division in the Trinity and suggestive of polytheism on behalf of Aristotelian Western scholastic, Barlaam of Calabria (1290-1348) in The Hesychast controversy. It was precisely for this specific type of God’s immanent formative principle of Stoics that forbid the cosmic god to be eo ipso an impersonal god. As Zeno put it, He is “not just ‘craftsmanlike’, but actually ‘a craftsman’, or even a ‘father’ [61], and for this particular quality is recommended by his rationality – drawn from the rationality of the cosmos - and providential
http://dialogo-conf.com
governing principle could be viewed as a ‘person’ with purposes and intentions: providence could be identified as ‘the will of Zeus’ [62]. E. Neoplatonism and God’s immanency Neoplatonism is a modern term used to designate a tradition of philosophy that arose in the 3rd century AD. Typical for a period of Even if Neoplatonists were heavily influenced by Plato, they had also been influenced by Christian thought as well as other philosophical system of thinking, it is difficult to reduce the school of thought to a concise set of ideas, making it a complex and syncretic current. As its predecessors, Neoplatonism stressed on transcendence, still the concept of immanence is also present in this syncretic thinking. Major role was played by its founders, Ammonius Saccas and Plotinus (204-270 CCE), Porphyry, Proclus, notable thinkers in Muslims such as alFarabi, Avicenna and Moses Maimonides; Pico della Mirandola, Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages et. ot., but we cannot make a foray on each these important thinkers. Instead we will appoint some general lines on immanence from Neoplatonism. For instance at the foundation of Plotinus’ theory about nature stands the idea of universal animation: “the world is made out of matter due to its penetration by divinity through emanation…everything moves around because of the eternal activity of the ‘universal soul’ ” [63]. Alexandria was the main metropole of philosophy and the middle-point between Orient and Occident, a true center of Judeo-Hellenistic philosophy, culminating with Philo of Alexandria (c. 25 BC – c. 50 AD). Philo bases his doctrines on the Old Testament, which he considers as the source and standard not only of religious truth but in general of all human truth too. Considering the present topic Philo has persuaded a different path, starting from this Judaic legacy he had inherited from a long and immutable tradition. To shorten it, we have to know that the main attribute Jews were boast much about it was the ‘election of God’ over all the others. Starting
- 143 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y from patriarchs, then prophets and until present time, Judaism is nothing more proud of but their state of ‘elected people’, through the fact that God chose Abraham and his kin to bear God’s teaching on Earth. This is a strong and longlasting feeling that I will develop more on the second presentation at this conference, that about Abraham’s revelation of God. Considering this Judaic remanence, Philo understood the highest God’s implication into creation as His providence and taking care over his election. “The power to combine the teachings of the various opposites and even schools teaching was the main characteristic of Philo” [64]. Therefore, he has combined the idea of the ‘God in the highest’ with the platonic conception on matter, and so he ended up in a gnostic mixture. “Consequently, his teachings on relations between God and the world are different from those of the Old Testament essential. The Material Creation is not the work of the Supreme Being; it would be dirty if it came into contact with it” [65]. From this platonic point of view the immanence in the sense of indwelling did nothing of the kind. But the God’s care for Jews was not a thought that could easily left apart from cosmology and his conception on God. So he turns unto another possible aspect of God’s immanence, the providence into a unified doctrine [66]. His doctrine tries to reconcile the transcendence of God with His providence by asking the questions why the transcendent God would exercise his providence for the world, and how can it be done. While to first he answers with God’s inherent goodness and graciousness, for the second relates to Philo’s doctrine of the Logos and the divine powers [67]. The reconciliation with Platonic view can be seen in the concept of Logos; in Philo’s thinking “in its transcendent aspect, the Logos is related to God’s nature as the mind of God, and in its immanent aspect, the Logos administers the work of the divine powers in the created world” [68], an idea developed further by Arians. But he does not fall into this mistake yet for he thinks about God and Logos as a unity, not separately, since God is, in essence, One; he did not fall into
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
gnosis trap of two biblical gods. “God and Logos are only conceptually, not actually separated”. [69] Philo does not put transcendence and immanence into contradiction, instead he suggests that “God is simultaneously wholly transcendent (as the ο ων) and wholly immanent in the world (in the form of an angel)” [70] that reveled at the burning bush to Moses (Exodus 3). ‘God is not either transcendent or immanent; he is both transcendent and immanent’. That way he combine these two attribute of God, keeping transcendence for God’s existence-essence, and immanence for His known attributes, e.g. goodness. Regarding the specific role of Logos that Philo ascribes it, as ‘mediator and arbitrator’ [71], between transcendence and immanence, between creator and creation, via its attendant powers. This is a response to Aristotle’s impassible Mind, unable to feel goodness or care for the creation. In conclusion, the key-theory on the conjunction between God’s transcendence and immanence is based on the Old Testament God’s way of self-reveling, the ο ων (Exodus 3.14), “He who IS”, ‘is at once the utterly transcendent and the one who is immanent involved in the well-being of his people’ [72]. This conjunction will became the emblem of Neoplatonism and it will also be transmitted to the Early Christian writers as it is. For Plotinus, ‘the greatest thinker between Aristotle and Spinoza’, the highest principle is wholly transcendent, the One, an immaterial and impersonal force that is the ground of all existence and source of all values. [73] From this, Dionysius will conclude that God “is immanent in that he is immediately present in all things as all their constitutive determinations; as Dionysius says, the being of all things is the divinity beyond being” [74]. On the other hand Proclus of Athens (412-485 CCE), ‘the culminating point of the Neo-Platonic philosophy’ (Hegel), was eager to demonstrate the harmony of the ancient religious revelations with the philosophical tradition of Pythagoras and Plato [75]. He takes the Plato’s concept of ‘participated’ (μετεχομενα), an individual property, and conjuncts it with a new one, the ‘unparticipated’ term (αμετεκτον), the
- 144 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.12
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy universal that is numerically one for all the instances and hence does not belong to any of them. All that is unparticipated produces from itself the participated, things capable of being participated. [76] The particular thing with Proclus’ concept of ‘unparticipated’ is that it “will give something of itself” in which the recipient participates, and this “something of itself” is none other than the participated term [77]. Fascinated by Proclus, Dionysius the Areopagite describes God as the “pre-existent Cause of all life and being through Its bounty which both brings them into existence and maintains them” [78]. He denies the immanent characteristics Stoics promoted for the Logos, so it does not possess outward shape, body or intelligible form but still it has another relation in shaping the doctrine of immanence. Through the relation of the triad immanence, procession and reversion (monê-prohodos-epistrophê), called the “triad of triads”, Proclus underlines that “Every effect remains in its cause, proceeds from it, and reverts upon it” [79] for God is present to all things as the constitutive determination by which each is itself and so is [80]. IV. The „Immanence” per se Until now we saw the main philosophical ideas around god’s immanence that were thought and might have been an influence for early Christian Fathers and writers. All in all these ideas and many other that came further gravitate around the same principles of immanence and inhabiting the universe by God or his energies. Could it be possible to find something more, any different theory that could help us understand even more the concept? After centuries in which the resident conception of God was entrusted in philosophy to transcendence (by Descartes or Kant), another philosopher, Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) dedicated his thinking to restore immanence, but it was in the same direction –he was called ‘the prince of philosophy’ for his theory of immanence by G. Deleuze. His influence made a good impact over Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995)
http://dialogo-conf.com
[81] that came up with a different concept and proposal for immanence. „Philosophy begins from an image of what it is to think, whether that be the grasp of ideal forms, the orderly reception of sense impressions, or the social construction of the world through language. The concepts of a philosophy both build, and build upon, that image. But if the history of philosophy is a gallery of such images of thought – from the conversing Socrates and mathematical Plato, to the doubting Descartes and logical Russell – some philosophers have done more than stroll through this gallery to add their own image.” [82] The Deleuzian new concept, named the ‘plane of immanence’, rejects the idea that life and creation are opposed to death and noncreation. The Deleuzian interesting element is that, while almost everyone before him has addressed the philosophical notion of immanence in contact and in opposition to the transcendence, Deleuze eliminates this opposition designs a plane of existence where immanence has no equal or opponent; this plane is a pure immanence an unqualified immersion or embeddedness, an immanence which denies transcendence as a real distinction, Cartesian or otherwise. Pure immanence is thus often referred to as a pure plane, an infinite field or smooth space without substantial or constitutive division. In his final essay entitled ‘Immanence: A Life’, Deleuze writes: “It is only when immanence is no longer immanence to anything other than itself that we can speak of a plane of immanence.” [83] Due to this there is certainly a first separations mental block, namely the inability to understand what is immanent and nail, because, in a metaphysics consistent with Spinoza’s single substance (God or Nature), immanence is not immanent to substance but rather that immanence is substance, that is, immanent to itself. Pure immanence therefore will have consequences not only for the validity of a philosophical reliance on transcendence, but simultaneously for dualism and idealism. In this system of reality nothing meta-physics will ever be or be thought (dualism), nor as
- 145 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y the primary condition of unilateral subjective mediation of external objects or events (idealism). Thus all real distinctions (mind and body, God and matter, interiority and exteriority, etc.) are collapsed or flattened into an even consistency or plane, namely immanence itself, that is, immanence without opposition [84]. In that plan of immanence even immanence cannot be thought, explained or conceived, since there is nothing else but it. When there is solely you, you cannot define yourself as being or existence, and it is most likely to ‚become’ unaware of yourself; your conscience will literally become unconscious in a non-personal existence. Pure self-existence equals with nonexistence, therefore pure immanence denies immanence per se. So, pentru a nu mai lungi vorba, the ontological argument can be apply here to understand that immanence exists just because we can speak about it, and therefore it is not the only reality that exists. In other words, we can speak of a ‘plan of immanence’ only if we admit ‘plane of transcendence’; only in this couple of realities we can conceive how brain imagines, relates to, represents and what life is in itself. Otherwise we would only do these acts – reasoning, imagining, relate to others of live – but never become aware of the act itself as another reality, or better to say as Platon implied that beyond every act is the idea that make the act possible. It is however paradoxical to base this theory in comparison with Platonism, that, on the contrary, was trying to potentiate the sovereignty of transcendence. Usually, the dualism transcendent-immanent does not count as a cohabitation of those two realities, but as the imposing of one of them over the other; whether the world beyond is the true one (realism), or that it is the only one that matters (idealism), no system of philosophical thought does not seem to succeed cohabitating them in the way that both are equally real and can hold non-confrontational realities. The recognized Deleuze’s merit is the removal of these cognitive preconceptions, and “one of the central accomplishments of Daniel Colucciello Barber, ‘Deleuze and the Naming of God: Post-
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Secularism and the Future of Immanence’, is decisively for decoupling any such association between immanence and secularism. It does this precisely by articulating immanence as a third and occluded possibility that troubles the very coordinates around which such debates are constructed. Indeed, by insisting that immanence is not simply something that supersedes the religious and delineates the secular, but constitutes a break with a dominant form of secularism itself, Barber forces us to rethink some of the basic concepts operative in contemporary theology, religious studies, and philosophy of religion” [85]. For this particular point of view on immanence everything Christian theologians thought about it is different. From the impossibility of transcendence to the new acceptance of the term of ‘becoming’ [86], everything stays inside this world, every development, cycle of production or of life, for he use as start the Nietzsche’s concept of ‘eternal return’. ‘Becoming’ is drawn from Deleuze’s opposition to existentialism and ‘being’, his opposition to psychoanalysis, and his interest in the vitalism of the universe – indeed, it forms the basis for much of Deleuze’s philosophy. [87]„Taking his lead from Friedrich Nietzsche’s early notes, Deleuze uses the term ‘becoming’ (devenir) to describe the continual production (or ‘return’) of difference immanent within the constitution of events, whether physical or otherwise. Becoming is the pure movement evident in changes between particular events. This is not to say that becoming represents a phase between two states, or a range of terms or states through which something might pass on its journey to another state. Rather than a product, final or interim, becoming is the very dynamism of change, situated between heterogeneous terms and tending towards no particular goal or endstate.” [88] There were certainly Christian writers who, under the influence of various philosophical currents, denied the relevance of divine immanence. Philon i.e. do not conceive that the Divine Logos was made flesh (for if He would
- 146 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.12
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy receive the body as any sensitive material thing, he would cease to be a noetic, intelligible reality). “The divine Logos... did not came in a visible form, having nothing in common with sensible things, but he is the very image of God, and the oldest of all intelligible things, which is the closest to the One and inseparable from Him by a space” [89]. But there are no evident traces in the Christian dogma for influences regarding Deleuze point of reference, namely to imply that immanence is the only possible reality, God included. In conclusion Putting into discussion all these philosophical ideas that must have been the start for some early Christian thinkers to obtain a logical ground for their image of God, prove only one thing: that none was so capable to express the Christian creed and, more than that, they could never replace or overcome the content of Revelation of Christ. The joy felt by Apostles after Resurrection of Christ, the peace within the martyrs at the time of their punishment and the urge of every Christian true believer to become as Christ are not feelings possibly given by any ideology or thinking, but from a living, immanent indwelling Christ-The God must had in them. Even just as philosophers claim, the word “God”, when is imply or specifically mentioned, is not at all like anything we mean by that in the process of religious worshiping, for philosophic thinking of Supreme being was never intended to aim for a relationship or a axiological behavior, but merely for a self-projection. That also must be the target of several attacks by atheists who believe that ‘gods’ of philosophy are anthropomorphic, by the image of the thinker, while for the Christians man is made in the image of God’s Image, Christ. The starting point of the doctrine of God’s immanence in Christianity was for sure not in one or other philosophy of that era, but in the incarnation of Christ-Son of God. Based on the biblical image of a god descended unto His creation as a part of it in order to redeem it, his Apostles taught about the triune God
http://dialogo-conf.com
immanency from the beginning. “The Word became human (flesh) and dwelt among us and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1.4). The Holy Spirit is also expressed as an immanence of God. “And the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased” (Luke 3.33) So the immanence of the triune God is celebrated in the Christian traditional Churches during the liturgical calendar feast as the Theophany of God, as a real, unbeatable and without precedent event in human history when God has made His indwelling into the creation more vivid than any other moment. In the biblical context of considering God’s indwelling with His creation there are two different kinds of immanency, one of His providence and the other one of His existence among which the moment of Incarnation made eternal through the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ is the most obvious one – but this is the subject for another paper as follows in this conference. References [1]
[2]
[3] [4]
[5] [6]
[7] [8]
- 147 -
J. Warschauer, Problems of immanence: studies critical and constructive. The Project Gutenberg EBook, 2007, 14. Paula Fredriksen, Christians in the Roman Empire in the First Three Centuries CE. In “”, 589. Ibidem, 598. Arthur Hilary Armstrong, An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy. New Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld, 1983, 87. Ibidem. Ferguson Everett, Backgrounds of Early Christianity. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2003, 1. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07682a. htm. Andrei Cornea, O istorie a neființei în filozofia greacă: de la Heraclit la Damascios. (eng. A history of nothingness in the greek philosophy: from Heraclitus to Damascus) Bucureşti: Humanitas, 2010, 27.
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y Frederick Copleston. Istoria filosofiei (eng. The history of philosophy) Volumul I: Grecia şi Roma. trad.: Ştefan-Dominic Georgescu, Dragoş Roşea. București: Editura ALL, 2008, 39. [10] Ibidem, 40. [11] Cornea, O istorie a neființei, 30. [12] Romulus Chiriță, Prelegeri de Istoria Filosofiei Antice Greceşti (eng. Lectures on the History of Greek Ancient Philosophy). Brașov, 2007, 22. [13] Copleston. Istoria filosofiei, vl. 1, 160. [14] Reference to: Alain de Libera, La querrelle des universaux: de Platon a la fin du Moyen Age. Paris: Editionis du Seuil, 1996. [15] Ibidem, 161-162. [16] Damian Gheorghe Patrascu, „Conceptia despre suflet în Platonism si la primii Parinti ai Bisericii”, în Caietele Institutului Catolic VII (2008, 1), 39. http://caiete.ftcub.ro/2008/ Caiete%202008-1%20Patrascu.pdf [17] Jaroslav Pelikan, What Has Athens to Do with Jerusalem? Timaeus and Genesis in counterpoint. USA: The University of Michigan Press, 2000, 14. [18] Copleston. Istoria filosofiei, vl. 1, 263. [19] Ibidem, 272. [20] Ibidem, 43. [21] Andrei Cornea, „Interpretare la Metafizica lui Aristotel” in Aristotel, Metafizica. Bucuresti: Humanitas, 2007, 28. [22] We mention here the example of the acorn which encompasses the final pattern of the tree, because the individual belonging to a species naturally tends to embody that specific form as precise as possible. For acorn, the oak is also its formal and final cause toward which it aims. This natural tendency toward form denotes that often the final, formal and effective causes are identical. Cf. Copleston. Istoria filosofiei, vl. 1, 282. [23] Ferguson Everett, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 340. [24] Andrei Cornea, „Interpretare la Metafizica lui Aristotel”, 24. [25] Aristotel, Metafizica, VIII, 1079 b. [26] Pelikan, What Has Athens…, 14. [27] Aristotel, Etica Nicomahică, București: [9]
Editura Ştiinţifică si Enciclopedică, 1988, III. Ibidem, XVI. [29] Ibidem. [30] Ferguson Everett, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 341. [31] A.H. Armstrong, An Introduction, 88. [32] Ibidem. [33] These are seen as immutable; for example the connections between mathematical names, between knowledge and the object of knowledge, between the epistemological and ontological relativism, or between things and forms. Cf. Metafizica, 1093 a. [34] Aristotel, Etica Nicomahică, X, nota 47. [35] Ibidem, Intro, nota 12. [36] Ibidem, X, 1172 b, 10. [37] Pelikan, What Has Athens…, 15. [38] Aristotel, Metafizica, III, 999 b. [39] Copleston. Istoria filosofiei, vl. 1, 282. [40] Ibidem, 335. [41] Ibidem, 274. [42] Ibidem, 337. [43] Ferguson Everett, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 342. [44] Romulus Chiriţă, Prelegeri de Istoria Filosofiei Antice Greceşti. 69. [45] Ibidem, 70. [46] Ferguson Everett, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 357. [47] Copleston, Istoria filosofiei, vl. 1, 348. [48] Maria Bulgaru, Din istoria gindirii filosofice (eng. From the history of philosophic thought), part I. Chisinau: Universitatea de Stat din Moldova, 1999, 130. [49] Ricardo Salles, God and Cosmos in Stoicism, New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 5. [50] Ferguson Everett, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 368. [51] Clement of Alexandria, Stromata. V, XII, 3084. [52] Dr. Mihai D. Vasile, Logos’ life, from Plato to the teachings of early Christian doctrine, in „Cogito”, Open Access Journal, 2.2/2010, 10. http://cogito.ucdc.ro/nr_2v2/ LOGOS%60%20LIFEroen.pdf [53] Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, V, 89, 3. [28]
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
- 148 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.12
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy Trad. In romana by D. Fecioru. Bucuresti> Ed. I.B.M.B.O.R, 1982, 361. [54] Al. Boboc (coord.), Studies on the History of World Philosophy, XIX. Bucuresti: ed. Academiei Romane, 2011, 71. [55] Ricardo Salles, God and Cosmos in Stoicism, 6. [56] Ibidem, 55. [57] Plato, Sophist 247d. From the online project „Perseus Hopper” at http://www.perseus. tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=plat.+soph.+247d. [58] Ricardo Salles, God and Cosmos in Stoicism, 149-150. [59] http://www.iep.utm.edu/stoicmind/. [60] Ibidem. [61] Theodore Scaltsas, Andrew S. Mason, The Philosophy of Epictetus. NY.: the Oxford University Press, 2007, 255. [62] Ricardo Salles, God and Cosmos in Stoicism, 244. [63] M. Bulgaru, Din istoria gindirii filosofice, 140. [64] Ciocan Tudor Cosmin, Jesus Christ - the fulfillment of God’s revelation, in “Philosophy of religion” Collection, Sibiu: ed. Astra Museum, 2011, 59. [65] Ibidem. [66] From a Neoplatonist perspective, Plotinus, Enneads 3.5:15, speaks explicitly of one providence (προνοια μια) which he characterizes as alone being on a high level (υπερανω); on a lower level providence is fate (ειμαπμενη). Peter Frick, Divine Providence in Philo of Alexandria, Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999, 57, Note 2. [67] Peter Frick, Divine Providence in Philo, 59. [68] Ibidem. [69] David Runia, Philo and the Timaeus, 443. [70] Ibidem. [71] In adittion, Philos describes Logos as “the first principle, the archetypal idea (αρξετυπος ιδεα), the pre-measurer (προμετπητης) of all things”. Peter Frick, Divine Providence in Philo, 75. [72] Ibidem, 56. [73] Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 391.
http://dialogo-conf.com
Eric D. Perl, Theophany: The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite, State University of New York Press, 2007, 29. [75] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ‚Proclus’. Online: http://plato.stanford.edu/ entries/proclus/ [76] E. Perl, Theophany, 22-23. [77] Ibidem. [78] Clarence E. Rolt, Dionysius the Areopagite on the Divine Names and the Mystical Theology, New York: Cosimo, 56, 96. [79] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ‚Proclus’. [80] E. Perl, Theophany, 28. [81] Claire Colebrook, Deleuze: A Guide for the Perplexed. A&C Black, 2006. [82] Adrian Parr (edit.), The Deleuze Dictionary. Revised Edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2010, p. 2. [83] Gilles Deleuze, Pure Immanence: Essays on a Life. New York: Zone Books, 2001, p. 27. [84] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_of_ immanence#cite_ref-Deleuze.2C_Pure_ Immanence.2C_p.27_2-0. [85] Alex Dubilet, Daniel Colucciello Barber, Deleuze and the Naming of God: postsecularism and the future of immanence (Edinburgh University Press, 2014). In „Parrhesia”, 20/2014, 116. [86] For Deleuze ‘becoming’ is not anymore the differences between a start- point and endpoint, as Parmenides explained it, but another static state. For him, becoming is neither merely an attribute of, nor an intermediary between events, but a characteristic of the very production of events. It is not that the time of change exists between one event and another, but that every event is but a unique instant of production in a continual flow of changes evident in the cosmos. The only thing ‘shared’ by events is their having become different in the course of their production. [87] Damian Sutton & David Martin-Jones, Deleuze Reframed. London: I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd, 2013, 18. [88] Adrian Parr (edit.), The Deleuze Dictionary, 26. [89] Philon din Alexandria, Comentariu alegoric al Legilor Sfinte după lucrarea de şase zile. [74]
- 149 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y Bucureşti: Herald, 2006, 34. Biography Ciocan Tudor Cosmin, born in Constanta/ Romania in 1977, I have attended several theological and psychological schools (BA, MB, PhD), obtained my PhD in Missiology and Doctrinal Theology in 2010. I was ordained as orthodox priest in 2002. High-school teacher from 1998, then Professor assistant and Lecturer from 2012, I have written more than 30 papers on theology and psychology, along with 4 single author books in the past two decades. In 2013 started a multidisciplinary program aiming to engage scholars from different files into friendly and academic debates with theology and in the same year a Research Center was founded in Ovidius University with researchers from 11 fields. in lest then 1 year I manage to gather people from around the globe around this idea and so we have started Dialogo Conferences project. In 2014 I received a Fulbright scholarship and I spent the summer California and 4 other States in USA, gathering data and understanding how religious pluralism is possible at a high level of involvement; in the same time I made friends from many different countries and religions that are now involved in this project or another, helping in his endeavor.
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
- 150 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2; 151-163 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.13 Constanta, ROMANIA - 2016, March 3
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy
Perspectives on the Logos’ immanence in Creation „He came to his own (eis ta idia, in propria), and his own (hoi idioi, sui) received him not” (Jn1:11) Fr. assoc. prof. Nicolae Moșoiu, PhD
„Saint Andrei Șaguna” Faculty of Orthodox Theology, University „Lucian Blaga”, Sibiu, Romania nicolaemosoiu@yahoo.com Motto: „The reasons of things that God prepared in advance for ages, as He Himself knew, can be seen through understanding from the creatures. For every creature of God, contemplated by us through nature, using science and knowledge, proclaim in a hidden manner the reasons after which they were made and they reveal the purpose placed by God in every creature. From the wise contemplation of creation we can perceive the Reason which enlightens us about the Holy Trinity, i.e. the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” [1]. Abstract: The article deals with the theme of the Logos` immanence in the creation. The first part includes a scientific perspective while the second, a theological one. The first evidence that the universe has a beginning dates back to the 20s of last century. Most scientists believed until then that the universe was stationary and had always existed; there are references to the big bang, string theory, M theory. The second part encompasses a perspective on the theme of the rational nature of the world which constitutes a firm foundation for dialogue between Theology and science. The logoi have a particularizing or a unifing function, and the complete unity of the
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
logoi is realized through and by the Logos, the Word of God. The essential difference between paradigms and logoi is that the latter belong to the temporal level and to the empirical world, while the former preexist synthetically into God.The uncreated divine energies are the logoi in the action of creating and supporting of the beings. Key words: big-bang, string theory, M theory, anthropic principle, divine paradigms, rationality and logoi of the creation I. A current scientific perspective [2] - the issue of formulating a universal theory/„the theory of everything” One of the most popular aphorisms of Albert Einstein’s is: „What is most incomprehensible about the universe is that it can be understood”. The laws of physics discovered by scientists, are valid everywhere in the universe, which is one of the prerequisites of the cosmology, supported, of course, by observations and experiments. The physical universe is made of matter. By „physical”,
- 151 -
eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928 printISSN: 2457-9297, ISSN-L 2392-9928 ISBN 978-80-554-1208-5
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y science understands material objects. The modalities of existence of matter, determined by the forces that govern it, are two: substance characterized by mass and field characterized by energy. All matter has a beginning at the big bang. The first evidence that the universe has a beginning dates back to the 20s of last century. Most scientists believed until then that the universe was stationary and had always existed. The evidence, says Stephan Hawking, were based on observations made by Edwin Hubble with the telescope of 100 inches on Mount Wilson, near Pasadena in California. By analyzing the spectrum emitted by galaxies, he found that all are moving away from us and the more away they are, the faster they move, concluding that the universe is expanding. In fact „not the space itself is expanding, but the distance between any two points in the universe increases (our emphasis)” [3]. „The expansion of space does not affect the size of material objects such as galaxies, stars, atoms and other objects held together by some type of forces” [4]. In 1927, Georges Lemaître, Roman Catholic priest and professor of physics, believes that if we follow the history of the universe back in time, it becomes smaller and smaller, until we reach the fact of Creation - what we now call the big bang. The phrase „big bang” was first used in 1949 by astro-physicist Fred Hoyle of Cambridge, who believed in an eternally expanding universe, but the expression was meant to be a pejorative description. The first direct observation to support the big bang, was only launched in 1965 with the discovery of the existence of a weak microwave background in outer space. In fact two radioastronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, while adjusting a large telecommunications antenna, found a noise that could not be removed by any efforts made. Physicist George Gamow had predicted the existence of this cosmic background radiation in a work of his own, saying that microwave radiation is everywhere in the universe, arising at the time of
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
the big bang. But the two did not know anything about it, so they phoned Robert Dicke, who led a team of researchers at Princeton which dealt with this issue. When Dicke heard about the dissatisfaction of the two regarding a persistent noise which could not be removed, no matter how many measures had been taken, he realized that they had discovered something momentous that is exactly what he was looking for – cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). Penzias and Wilson apparently learned what they had discovered from The New York Times, where it was published an article about their stunning discovery, explained by Dicke. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson received the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978. CMBR is the radiation left from the early universe which was very hot and dense immediately after the big bang, and it measures approximately 3K (actually 2,73K). Stephen Hawking states that in the first minutes, the universe must have been hotter than the center of a typical star and must have acted like a nuclear fusion reactor, then it began to expand and cool. The reactions will have stopped when the universe grew and cooled enough; at that time the universe was composed mainly of hydrogen, with an additional 23% helium and traces of lithium, other elements were formed later in stars. General relativity predicts the existence of a point in time at which the temperature, density and curvature of space are all infinite, a situation that mathematicians call a singularity [5]. At the initial singularity, from which emerged the big bang, all matter and space were compressed unto infinity, in an infinitely small volume. There was no space-time where big bang explosion could occur, but even space and time together with the matter have a beginning of existence at the big bang. We can make an analogy with a balloon. Its surface is the space and the balloon material is evenly distributed on the surface. At the time of the big bang, the universe has a cause triggered outer space expansion, the beginning of time and the scattering material in this dynamic space. At first, each point in the phase space (determined by the
- 152 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.1.13
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy Hamilton equations) represent a possible way different from that universe could have started. Creator, to trigger a low entropy universe in which human life was made possible, chose exactly one point in phase space. The scientist Roger Penrose, referring to the fine tuning of the universe says: „How great must have been the initial volume of phase space W that the Creator had to aim to produce a universe compatible with the second principle of thermodynamics and the one you see us now? [...] This figure shows us how precise the Creator had to aim, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10123. This is an extraordinarily high value. We cannot even write all of this number, based on 10: 1 would be followed by 10123 successive zeros! Even if we wanted to write 0 on each proton and each neutron in the entire universe - in fact we could take in a row all other particles, too - we could not write the whole number in the absence of particles. The precision with which this Universe must be started from the beginning of its race is no less inferior to the extraordinary accuracy that we are used to find in the superb dynamic equations (of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein) governing the behavior of things in every moment [6]. Two of the most important finds of the 20th century are: a) nothing can travel faster than the speed of light and b) the universe had a beginning of existence, about 13.7 billion years ago. There are three important proofs of the existence of the big bang which can be demonstrated empirically: a) the expansion of the universe, b) the abundance of simple atoms H, He, c) the cosmic microwave background radiation of the universe [7]. But the big bang model does not aim to explain: a) what generated space and time b) where does the universe extend, c) the cause of the big bang [8]. The scientist Steven Weinberg said, referring to the physical laws said that if we could find in nature a sign of God’s work, this would be the ultimate laws of nature. Knowing these laws we
http://dialogo-conf.com
would come into possession of the book where the rules that govern the stars, stones and all are written. It is therefore natural that Stephen Hawking called the laws of nature „mind of God”. Any religion (or lack of them) we share, talking about the ultimate laws of nature as God’s mind is an irresistible metaphor [9]. Indeed, Stephen Hawking ended one of his famous books The Theory of Everything [10] with the expression „God` mind”: „If we eventually find a complete theory, it will come to be understood in principle by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we can all participate in the discussion around the question of why the universe exists. If we find the answer to this question it will be the ultimate triumph of human reason, for then we will have entered in God`s mind” [11]. In fact, the great English scholar highlights that from Newton and especially from Einstein onwards, the goal of physics was to find simple mathematical principles, the kind imagined by Kepler, and create with them a unified theory
- 153 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y of everything, which would explain every detail of matter and the forces that we observe in nature. Moreover, in the late 19th and early 20th century, Maxwell and Einstein unified theories of electricity, magnetism and light; and in the 70s the standard model was developed, i.e. a unique theory for three of the four forces [12]: strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force [13]. String theory and M theory arose from the attempt to include the fourth force, gravity. The aim was to find a single theory that explains not only forces but also all the fundamental numbers such as strength of forces and masses and charges of the elementary particles [14]. According to string theory, the particles are not points, but they are enclosures in vibration that have length but no width or height - like violin strings infinitely thin. But these theories have consistency, says Stephen Hawking, only if space-time has ten dimensions instead of four, which would be curved in a tiny space. In fact, it would be entwined in what is called internal space, to be differentiated from the threedimensional space that we know from everyday life. String theory would have a shortcoming because there are at least five different theories and millions of ways in which extra dimensions can be coiled, so it is difficult to argue that string theory would be the only theory of everything [15]. More recently, string theorists are convinced that the five superstring theories and supergravity are just different approximations of a deeper theory, each valid in different situations, this fundamental theory is called the M theory. The name could come from the words: master, miracle or mystery, or perhaps all three [16]. Stephen Hawking also said that whether the M theory exists as a single formulation or just as a network, M-theory has eleven spacetime dimensions and contains not only strings vibrating, but particles dots, two dimensional membranes, tridimensional drops, and other more unimaginable objects called p-brane (where p takes values from 0 to 9). Also the
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
laws of the M theory show the existence of different universes with apparently different laws, depending on how internal space is coiled, the M theory having solutions that enable the existence of numerous different internal spaces, maybe even 10500, which meant that the theory admits 10 to the power 500 different universes, each with its own laws [17]. But Stephen Hawking asks if there really can be a unified universal theory? Or are we chasing a chimera? There seems to be three possibilities, which the great English scholar lists and further develops: • There really is a complete unified theory, which we will someday discover if we are smart enough. • There is no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe with increasing accuracy There is no theory of the universe. Events cannot be predicted beyond a certain field, and occur in a random and arbitrary manner [18]. In a substantial work [19], recently published, Cristian Presura, PhD in Physics from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, points out that the original purpose of string theory was to describe all elementary particles and their interactions [20], and „the final step would be the building of a complete and consistent theory of relativistic strings, explaining the observed universe. Since the original aim was the inclusion of the graviton, the theory would explain not only the table of elementary particles, but also the gravity. This would be the long-awaited unification by the physicists, and therefore would be called the `theory of everything` [21]. One of the problems appeared „when it turned out that there were several forms of superstring theory. (...) String theory remains an exercise of imagination that has not yet been subjected to tests that could distinguish between all forms of theory. Thus the most direct way of testing is to produce and collide particles with a mass close to the Planck mass. Unfortunately, the
- 154 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.1.13
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy Planck mass is billions of billions of times greater than the mass of particles that are produced today in the modern particle accelerators, so we must wait” [22]. Regarding the M theory, the Romanian scientist asks: „What is this relationship between the various superstring theories of relativity? Apart from the obvious fact that what we know is still insufficient, a common view is that all these theories are obtained perhaps from a more comprehensive theory, called the M theory (M comes either from membrane or the from mystery, according to the physicists’ preferences). Little is known about this M theory, but one can suspect it would occur in a universe with 11 dimensions and that would lead to supergravity within his weak coupling” [23]. In conclusion, despite the initial enthusiasm regarding „the discovery of the link between supergravity in 11 dimensions and superstring theory in 10 dimensions, no progress has been achieved especially in recent years. No one has demonstrated the existence of the M theory. The string theory remains a puzzle, though an imaginative one” [24]. Likewise Brian Greene said at the end of an excellent book: „Over the centuries, the superstring theory, or its development in M theory, could go as far from its present form, as to be unrecognizable even to researchers leading today. On the way to the ultimate theory, it is very possible to see that the theory is but one of the important steps toward a broader understanding of the cosmos - which involves understanding very different ideas from everything we have ever encountered so far. The history of science teaches us that every time we think we can find out everything, nature offers us a surprise that demands significant changes, sometimes drastic of our way of looking at the world” [25]. Very useful to understand the complexity of the effort to find a unifying theory to explain the universe are recent scientific documentaries such as those about the „elegant universe” [26].
http://dialogo-conf.com
II. The world if for the man [27] – some considerations about the anthropic principle The anthropic principle was formulated in 1961 by astronomer Robert Dicke (19161997), which was based on some works of the English physicist Paul Dirac. Anthropocentric perspective on the universe is synthesized in Dirac’s aphorism: „The universe has the properties it has and that man can see, because if it had had other properties, man would not have existed” [28]. The emergence of human life depends on the very delicate tuning of the universe. The scientific community is in full agreement on this claim, but about the cause of this fine-tuning, which does not belong to the scientific field, but to the metaphysical, there are two opinions. One affirms that God is the cause and the other hypothesis states speculatively that there can be multiple universes, universes that include all ours and is called the multiverse. The issue of the anthropic principle arose from questions like: How important is the existence of consciousness in the whole universe? Could there be a universe that is not populated by sentient beings? Do the laws of physics are so designed as to enable the existence of a conscious life? Does our particular position in the Universe, in space or in time, had anything special? [29]. The weak anthropic principle refers to spatial and temporal location of conscious life (or „smart”) in the universe. The principle could explain the striking numerical relations that seem to exist between the physical constants (the gravitational constant, the proton mass, age of the universe). The strong anthropic principle extends the explanation of the appearance of conscious human life about the infinity of possible universes. If the laws or constants in the universe would be different, we would not have to be in this universe, but in another! Unlike the weak anthropic principle, the strong anthropic principle is speculative, with no possibility of any experiment to validate the multiverse
- 155 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y hypothesis. The scientist Roger Penrose states that „strong anthropic principle has a character quite dubious, and it tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they don’t have a theory sufficient enough to explain the observed facts” while „weak anthropic principle is undeniable, provided it is used very carefully” [30]. For Stephen Hawking, the anthropic principle is an answer to the question: „Why were three spatial dimensions and one temporal flattened, and the others remained closely entwined”? [31]. Two spatial dimensions do not seem sufficient to enable the development of complex beings like us. The scientist Martin Rees says the same: „The sixth crucial number is known for centuries, but it is now seen in a new perspective. It is the number of spatial dimensions of our world, D, and equals three. Life could not exist if D would be equal to two or four. Time is the fourth dimension, but it is different from others in that it has its own arrow: we only move forward” [32]. III. A theological perspective - the rationality of the world The relationship between rationality and the unity of creation, and the unifying role of man and of the Church are highlighted by Father Stăniloae when, in the chapter about the divine attributes, he writes about „simplicity and unity of God and participation in it of the composed creature” [33]. „Saint Maximus the Confessor sees all creation prefigured in an assembly of God’s eternal reasons that branch off from their unity in the work of creating the world and perfecting them, and then returning to their unity; rather lead the world toward an eternal unity in God, through the work of perfecting its component units, like a dynamic source of it” [34]. Dealing with the theme of rationality of the world is an opportunity to emphasize the mystery of life, the beauty of this world created by God „all good”, to understand that paradise could and would be extended by humans worldwide. It will also have to point out that, though the world
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
itself speaks about the Creator, we can postulate without difficulty, carefully studying the nature, the existence of the One Who created it, there will never be made analogia entis, God remains, as in Rudolf Otto’s phrase, forever totally different, ganz Andere, an over-bright mystery, a personal transcendent presence, but also immanent through love. On the other hand, Father Stăniloae noted that rationality of the world is not a reality closed in itself, but rather leads us to the mystery, the mystery of creation that is not by itself, but requires a self-existing from eternity, the mystery of God, as a rational explanation of the mystery of creation. A. The World as the Rational Creation of the Holy Trinity In one of his important books, Thomas F. Torrance noted that in his autobiography, Bertrand Russell reversed the process which had been common in philosophy since Kant [35]: “It has been common among philosophers to begin with how we know and proceed afterwards to what we know. I think this is a mistake, because knowing how we know is one small department of knowing what we know. I think it is a mistake for another reason: it tends to give knowing a cosmic importance which it by no means deserves, and thus prepares the philosophical student for the belief that mind has some kind of supremacy over the nonmental universe, or even that the non-mental universe is nothing but a nightmare dreamt by the mind in its unphilosophical moments” [36]. In conclusion, “what we know has a reality apart from our knowing of it. Hence, as Einstein used to insist, «the belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science» [37]. Nevertheless, intelligible reality and intelligent inquiry belong together. But the great question remains: “Is the universe comprehensible to us because somehow it is intrinsically intelligible,
- 156 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.1.13
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy because it is endowed with an immanent rationality quite independent of us which is the ground of its comprehensibility to us, or is the intelligibility with which the universe is clothed in our knowledge of it something extrinsic to it, which we construct out of our own mental and impose upon the being of the universe? The most persistent answer to that question throughout the centuries has been that which points to «natural» patterns and structures in the universe which are what they are independent of us but with which our mental operations are steadily coordinated. In modern times, however, there has developed a widespread tendency to hold that the intelligibility of the universe does not originally belong to it but derives from the structuring operations of man’s consciousness and is shaped by the ends which has in view” [38]. Hence one can speak about “classical” and “modern” attitudes of mind, and correspondingly draw a distinction between inherent rationality and technological rationality [39]. Thomas F. Torrance also emphasized that the classical attitude of mind owes a great deal to the reconstruction of Greek thought through patristic theology and philosophy. The recognition that the temporal and sensible universe has an inherent rationality of its own in virtue of its creation by God, the transcendent and creative Source of all rationality, made possible the development of positive, empirical science, and indeed a knowledge of the universe grounded in its own inner determinations and relations [40]. The theme of the rational nature of the world is very important and it constitutes (along with apophatic Theology) a firm foundation for dialogue with the science. Quantum physics points out the fact that nature is an indivisible ensemble where everything relates. There are no random events at the origin of creation, there is no hazard but an order superior to everything we can imagine: the supreme order that governs the physical constants (h, c, g),
http://dialogo-conf.com
the initial conditions, the behavior of atoms and the life of the stars. There is order there, both eternal and necessary, high above the universe, but present in every particle. Below the surface of the real therefore, there lies what the Greek called logos, an intelligent element, rational, which rules, drives and animates the world and which prevents this world from being chaotic, but makes it ordered instead” . Life itself is a miracle, as Francis Crick says, the British molecular biologist and Nobel-prize winner who discovered the DNA: „an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going” [42]. Professor Nicolae Chiţescu was the first to discuss this theme in Romanian theology. The prologue to the Gospel according to Saint John presents the Son of God as Logos, participating in the Creation together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the One Who, by Incarnation, “came to His own home” (Jh1:11). Although, the prologue does not state that He seeded these logoi, seminal reasons in the creation, the Holy Tradition offers clear foundations, and that is why the Romanian theologian considers that the teaching about divine paradigms and implicitly about the logoi, must be taken as merely an theologumenon with “explicit basis in one of the columns of Divine Revelation and circulating in the Christian theology” [43]. This teaching “opens a door in the darkness that surrounds the prelude of Creation. It had also been prepared by the wisdom of the pagans who were worthy enough to enter the antechamber of the Christian Church by the value of their knowledge (known through the mosaic Revelation or the primordial one, according to their Christian admirers). What a deep and wonderful thing it is to go to the mysterious depths of God’s plans about creation” [44]. The rational nature of the world is due to the seminal reasons (logoi spermatikoi) [45] – seeded by the Divine Logos. It is worth pointing out the way in which professor Nicolae Chițescu
- 157 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y crosses over from the paradigmatic level, a volitional one, to the ontic level: while “the paradigms are eternal divine models, these logoi are seminal rationalities, rationes seminales, or the natural laws, or producing rational causes in the universe” [46]. Following Saint Dionysus the Areopagite, the Romanian professor states: “the fundamental difference between paradigms and logoi: the latter belong to the temporal plan and to the empirical world, while the former «are preexisting synthetically in God, as primordial elements of any reality»” [47]. Lars Thunberg reviews the way in which the concept is reflected in the Christian thinking, from Origen to Saint Maximus the Confessor [48]. In Saint Maximus` work, the term logos is frequently used, which indicates its special significance: “Il semble qu’elle constitue un des principes organisateurs de sa vision du monde et nous ne sachions pas qu’elle ait réçu ailleurs d”aussi amples développements” [49]. Father Stăniloae includes the theme of divine reasons within the vast work of Saint Maximus, to reject Origenism, all the more clear since this theme is also discussed by Origen. Still, while the latter considered that “the rationalities were one with the pre-existing spirits, united somewhat essentially with the Logos, Saint Maximus sees them as mere thoughts of God, according to which He brings creatures into existence by the decision of His will. Rationalities are not beings, but God’s thoughts that create beings, some of whom are persons of unfathomable depths. The change from the thinking level to the ontological level is done through creation, from the beings thought by God to their existence by God’s will” [50]. The Orthodox theologian Jean-Claude Larchet has also begun a vast research into Saint Maximus’ work, aware of the previous contributions to this theme [51]. In his introduction to Ambigua, he reviews Saint Maximus` doctrine about logoi. To Saint Maximus, the logos of a being is his essential principle or reason, what fundamentally defines it and characterizes it, but also its finality, in short its reason of being
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
in the double sense mentioned. The principle and the finality are both in God, which is why the word logos has also got a spiritual sense. The fact that all there is corresponds to a logos ensures that the diversity of the created world and its uniqueness is founded in God [52]. This, taking into account the particular which preserves the independence and the individual existence of those created is fundamentally opposed to the platonic conception that states that the particular is a falling from the universal (the Ideas or the Essences). Every entity has at the same time a logos that situates it in a gender (genos), species (eidos), that defines its essence (ousia) or nature (physis) – Saint Maximus often refers to this fundamental logos of nature (logos tes physeos) – , one logos that defines its constitution (krasis), logoi that define its power, work, passion respectively but also what defines it in relation to quantity, quality, relationship, time, place, position, movement, stability [53], as well as a great number of other logoi that define its multiple qualities. According to these logoi, all that is “has an order and a permanence and nothing separates it from its natural property, it does not change into anything different and is not mixed up” [54]. Certain logoi have therefore a particularizing function, they prevent things from not being mixed up, while others have a unifying function, they allow for a supreme unity [55] since the world both contains an “indivisible difference” and a “remarkable uniqueness” [56]. The complete unity of the logoi is realized through and by the Logos, the Word of God [57], the beginning and the finality of every logoi [58], since they are contained and they exist in Him, before everything created had been brought into existence [59]. Therefore, any creature virtually exists through its logos in God before time, but they begin to exist, according to the same logos, when God, in His wisdom, deems it to be necessary to create it [60]. “The favorable moment” contained in the logos of every creature transforms the chronological vision into a “kairologic” and eschatological fulfillment of
- 158 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.1.13
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy time, it transforms the succession into passing, “Easter”. Once created according to a logos, God in His grace preserves them, makes their possibilities real – creatures of reason and free will contribute themselves to this realization – and guides them to Him [61]. In the Orthodox interpretation of the text [62] from the work of Saint Gregory the Theologian: “What does wisdom want with me and what is the great mystery? Does it not want that we, who are God’s and who have issued from above to search for Him always in our struggle with the flesh?” , Alain Riou [63] finds three expressions of the theory of the logoi [64]. The same author states that the first expression seems to have emerged from a metaphysical search and tries to resolve the problem of One and the Many. If Origen had solved it in the theory of the henad, Saint Dionysus the Areopagite in his hierarchies, Saint Maximus adopts the vocabulary of the Alexandrian theology of the Logos and writes: “Who would fail to recognize the One Reason in the many reasons divided indivisibly in the variety of beings, as their nature is that of referring to each other and still be themselves unmixed?” [65]. In the note to this paragraph Father Stăniloae writes: “Saint Maximus shows from the very beginning the right way to claim we are part of God: it means that in the variety of beings and in the relationships among them there lies the Divine Reason, the one divided indivisibly in the beings` reason. All beings are «parts» of God in the same sense that they have God’s hypostatic Reason as their principle and cause”. However, in order to put aside any metaphysical interpretation, Saint Maximus points out that this Logos is God’s image that Saint Paul mentions in his Epistle to the Colossians` hymn, the Word co-substantial with the Father, Who participated in the creation of the world. This is the way out of the philosophical problem, and even if one could still see “ontology”, it cannot be a general ontology applied to cosmology but one of a mysterious and revealed structure of the created world, a mystery that belongs to the divine counsel [66]. Even though
http://dialogo-conf.com
one can identify the Alexandrian terminology of Logos - logoi here, the text seems to be loosely translated from the Epistle to the Ephesians: “the good pleasure of his will” (Eph1:5) where the good pleasure is boulesei agathe, and then: “unto a dispensation of the fullness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth” (Eph1:10) to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment- to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. The logoi are neither God the Word in His Divine Essence that transcends them, nor the creatures, but somehow the “destiny” of each creature, their fulfillment into God, because in God preexists the reason for their existence, as origin and cause [67]. Father Stăniloae has an important annotation: “Angels or people are «part» [moira] of God because they come from God’s preexisting reason and because, moving according to their nature and to the divine will which actuates them through reason, which is their basis of the divine origin of their nature, will be infused with divine energy so that there will be no separation between them and God”. This doctrine on things` (ton onton) divine reasons links those reasons to the divine will. Saint Dionysius the Areopagite [68] had already affirmed that reasons are divine wills. He was thus restating Clement’s view on creation which is not the necessary result of the divine power or of the natural dynamics of the divine, but the result of God’s will. In the subsequent centuries, there is no alternation on the paradigms (or reasons) and wills, as at Saint Dionysius, but a compound expression is used: His volitional thinking [69]. Reasons are not, as before, inert models, but created volitional powers of God which imply thinking of the models of things. The beings’ reasons, although eternal, since there is nothing temporal in God, do not however belong to His nature, but are the expression of His will. Saint Maximus links here the idea of purpose (aim). He states that by intuiting the divine reasons of created things, we intuitively know their purpose that is their dynamics towards a purpose [70].
- 159 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y The economic character of the logoi and their relationship to the divine “intention” shows, against Neo-Platonism and their “divine ideas”, the fact that they are not emissions from the divine being, but the work of God’s will. This also excludes the pagan and Greek views of a closed, quantitatively-limited universe from the beginning, in which the Demiurge or the gods simply remodel differently the same material, constantly reused across different stages of metempsychosis [71]. Conclusion In conclusion, according to professor Chitescu, the paradigms are eternal divine models and the logoi or the seminal reasons (rationes seminales) are laws of producing and rational causes in the universe. The essential difference between paradigms and logoi is that the latter belong to the temporal level and to the empirical world, while the former “preexist synthetically into God, as primordial elements to any reality” [72]. The uncreated divine energies are the logoi in the action of creating and supporting of the beings.
References [1]
[2]
Sfântul Maxim Mărturisitorul, „Răspunsuri către Talasie” (Quest. ad Thal.), în Filocalia, vol. III, Sibiu, 1949, p. 45-46. It had been said „current” because in the East was not made the mistake of dogmatise certain scientific theories and therefore to consider them to be the ultimate possible. See books cited in this presentation, and other important recent works about cosmology and anthropology: Francisco J. Ayala, Darul lui Darwin către Știință si Religie (Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion). București: Curtea Veche, 2008; John Polkinghorne, Quarci, haos şi creştinism (Quarks, Chaos and Christianity), București: Curtea Veche, 2006; Idem, Teologia în contextul ştiinţei (Theology in the Context of Science), București: Curtea Veche, 2010; Martin Rees. Doar șase numere
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
[3]
[4] [5] [6]
- 160 -
(Just Six Numbers), Humanitas, 2008; Ian Stewart, Numerele Naturii (The Numbers of Nature), Humanitas, 2011; Denis Alexander, Creaţie sau Evoluţie. Trebuie să alegem? (Creation or Evolution ? Do We Have to Choose ?) Curtea Veche, 2010; Peter Atkins, Amprenta lui Galileo. Cele 10 mari idei ale științei.(Galileo’s Finger.The Ten Great Ideas of Science) Bucureşti: All, 2007; Livio Mario, Secțiunea de aur (The Golden Ratio), București: Humanitas, 2012; Idem, Este Dumnezeu mathematician? (Is God a Mathematician?), București: Humanitas, 2009; Andrew Robinson, Măsura lucrurilor. (The Measure of Things) București: Art, 2008; Bruce Rosemblum, Fred Kutter. Enigma Cuantică. (Quantum Enigma) București: Prestige, 2011; Smolin Lee, Spaţiu, timp, univers, (Science, Time, Universe) Humanitas, 2008; Steven Weinberg Descoperirea particulelor subatomice (The Discovery of Subatomic Particles), Humanitas, 2007; Trinh Xuan Thuan, Melodia secretă (The Secret Melody), Curtea Veche, 2012- see especially pp.139-140 - “the great cosmic ballet” enormous speeds with which the planets, stars and galaxies are moving: the earth rotates with 30km / s (108.000km / h) around the Sun and 1673 km / h at the equator around its axis; the solar system rotates around the center of the Milky Way with 230km / s (828.000km / h). In turn, the Milky Way “falls by 90km / s (324.000km / h) towards its companion galaxy, Andromeda” and the two galaxies go towards the super cluster to cluster of galaxies Hydra and Centaur 600km / s (2.160.000km / h) . In their turn, the latter go “to another large cluster of galaxies, which astronomers in the absence of further information, call the” Great Attractor ‘ “(p.139). Stephen W. Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow, Marele plan (The Grand Design), Humanitas, 2012, 2015, p. 104, 105. Ibidem, p. 106 Ibidem, p.108, 109 Roger Penrose, Mintea noastră … cea de toate zilele, despre gândire, fizică și calculatoare, (The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics) București, Ed. Tehnică, 2006, p. 613- 614.
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.1.13
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy Image credit: NASA / WMAP Science Team http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/101080/ index.html [8] Image credit: NASA / WMAP Science Team http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/ index.html [9] Steven Weinberg, Visul unei teorii finale. În căutarea legilor ultime ale naturii, (Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature) București: Humanitas, 2010, p.213, 214. [10] Stephen W. Hawking, Teoria universală. Originea și soarta Universului, (The Theory of Everything. The Origin and fate of the universe) Humanitas, 2012, 2015. [11] Ibidem, p.140. Steven Weinberg is skeptical about the future of a final theory: „The final theory might come to us in centuries from now and it could be completely different from what we imagine now”, The dream of a final theory, op. cit., p. 187. [12] Known forces of the nature can be divided into four classes: 1. Gravity. It is the weakest of the four, but it is a long-range force acting on any thing in the universe as an attraction. This means that for large bodies, forces are added together and dominate all other forces. 2. Electromagnetism. It’s a long-range force too, but much stronger than gravity, and acts only on particles having electric charge; same kind charges repel and opposites attract. This means that electrical forces between big bodies cancel each other, but at the scale of atoms and molecules, they are dominant. Electromagnetic forces are responsible for all chemistry and biology. 3. Weak nuclear force. It explains radioactivity and plays an essential role in the formation of elements in stars in the early universe. 4. The strong nuclear force. This force keeps protons and neutrons together inside atomic nucleus. It also maintains, together protons and neutrons themselves, which is necessary because they are particles composed of still smaller quarks. The strong force is the energy source of the sun and of nuclear plants. Stephen W. Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow, Marele plan, Humanitas, 2012, 2015, p.87-88. [13] See, ibidem, p. 92-102. [14] Stephen W.Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow, Marele plan (The Grand Design), Humanitas, [7]
http://dialogo-conf.com
2012, 2015, p. 142. Ibidem, p. 98-99. [16] Ibidem, p.100: „Supergravity, however, had the opportunity to take precedence when physicists tried to save string theory: they added the 11th dimension to the 10, and the result was surprising. The five versions of the theory, competing with each other, proved to be variants of the same fundamental theories which began to make sense again. With the addition of the 11th dimension the theory was transformed as follows: strings, which are supposed to underlie the matter in the universe expanded and combined. The extraordinary conclusion was that all matter in the universe was connected in one huge structure called the membrane. This new theory was named “M Theory” from the word “membrane” and boosted again seeking explanation for all things in the universe. What is known, however, about the 11th dimension? It was quickly discovered that it lengthens indefinitely, but it is very small in width, i.e. it measures one millimeter divided by a 1 followed by 20 zeros, as Ovrut Burt says. Our mysterious membrane universe is floating in this space. But soon after the M theory, there was again a new idea, that at the opposite end of the size 11 is another “universe-membrane” pulsating” https:// ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teoria_M. [17] Ibidem, p.100, 101. [18] Stephen W.Hawking, Teoria universală (The theory of Everything), op.cit,,p.135 și sq. [19] Cristian Presură, Fizica povestită (Physics as a Story), Humanitas, 2014, 644p. (format A4). [20] Ibidem, p. 581. [21] Ibidem. [22] Ibidem; see also: Brian Greene, Universul elegant, supercorzi, dimensiuni ascunse și căutarea teoriei ultime (The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory), Humanitas, 2003 – It is the first book in Romanian that provides a systematic, clear and intuitive view on the string theory, one of the most read books in science in recent years. The book has at the end a very useful glossary of scientific terms. [15]
- 161 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y Cristian Presură, Fizica povestită (Physics as a Story), op.cit, p. 584. [24] Ibidem, p.585. [25] Brian Greene, Universul elegant (The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory), op.cit., p. 391. [26] https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=KoubJU2dpcE și https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=Fz3TZaKvY1I [27] Pr. Prof. Dumitru Stăniloae, TDO, vol. I, p. 354, sq. [28] http://www.physics.pub.ro/Cursuri/Eugen_ Scarlat_-_Fizica_1/1-Introducere_2015.pdf; https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dicke [29] Roger Penrose, Mintea noastră … cea de toate zilele, op.cit., p. 780. [30] Ibidem, p. 782. [31] Stephen W. Hawking, Teoria universală (The theory of Everything), op. cit., p. 133; see also p. 92: „Why do not we notice all these extra dimensions, if they really exist? Why do we see only three spatial dimensions and one time?” S. Hawking answers that other dimensions are coiled in a very small space, something around the order of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a centimeter. We see only three dimensions of space and time in which the space-time is flat (p.132) [32] Martin Rees. Doar șase numere (Just Six Numbers), Humanitas, 2008, p.11 [33] Preotul Profesor Dumitru Stăniloae, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă (TDO), (I), 2003, p.171177 [34] Ibidem, p.173 [35] Thomas F. Torrance, Reality and scientific Theology, Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, 1985, p. 1. [36] B. Russell, My Philosophical Development, London, 1959, p. 16. [37] A. Einstein, The World as I See It, London, 1953, p. 60; apud T.F. Torrance, op. cit., p. 2. [38] T.F. Torrance, op. cit., p. 3. [39] Ibidem. [40] Ibidem, p. 6. [41] Jean Guitton- membru al Academiei Franceze [member of the French Academy], Dumnezeu [23]
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
şi ştiinţa [God and Science], Ed. Harisma, 1991, p. 45. [42] Ibidem, p. 50, quoted also on http://blog. darwincentral.org/2007/10/17/unclosetingthe-discovery-institute-the-idea-that-darenot-speak-its-name-part-1/ and many other websites. [43] Prof. Nicolae Chiţescu, “Paradigmele divine şi problemele pe care le ridică ele pentru teologia dogmatică” [“The Divine Paradigms and the problems they raise for the Dogmatic Theology”], Ortodoxia [Bucharest], nr. 1, (1958), p. 23. [44] Ibidem, p. 24. [45] Logoi spermatikoi represent the adaptation of the stoic Aristotelian eide (appearance, constitutive nature, form, species, idea) which are immanent to matter and conduct the entire structure of teleological individual essences; cf. Michel Spanneut, Permanence du Stoicisme, De Zenon a Malraux, Ed. J. Duculot, S.A., Gembloux, 1973. [46] Prof. Nicolae Chiţescu, op. cit., p. 42. [47] Ibidem, p. 45. [48] Probably on the basis of the stoic logos spermatikos, Origen is the first thinker of the Church to have presented a theory on the logoi of creation. He considers them as ideas present into Christ as Wisdom (In Io. I, 34; De princ. I, 2, 2) where they form – in the Platonic sense – the intelligible world, a model for the sensitive world. They represent ‘the original goodness’ of those created. This line of thought can be traced to a certain degree to Saint Athanasius too who affirms that God, aware that a world differentiated according to different logoi would be a divided one, created the world according to His Logos (Or. contra gentes 41; P.G., 25, 84A) and is reflected at Augustin who uses rationes for logoi whom he considers unmovable eternal principles. (De div. Quaest. 83, 46, 2; P.L., 40, 30). But the dominant influence in this respect on Saint Maximus has been that of Evagrius’ and, especially, Saint Dionysius` who introduced a dynamic and intentional understanding of the logoi. Evagrius emphasizes the logoi of providence and judgement (Cent. gnost. 5, 16; P.O. 28, p. 183), and the idea of a final ‘spiritual contemplation’ where logoi are seen in mystical communion to God. (Ibidem, p.
- 162 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.1.13
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy 193), Lars Thunberg, Man and the Cosmos – The Vision of St. Maximus the Confessor, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York, 1985, pp. 77-78. [49] I.H. Dalmais, “La théorie des «logoi» des créatures chez saint Maxime le Confesseur”, Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, 36, (1952), p. 244. [50] Pr. Prof. Dr. Dumitru Stăniloae, Introduction. to Ambigua., Rom. trans. P.S.B., 80, pp. 2829. [51] J.C. Larchet, Introduction to: Saint Maxime le Confesseur, Ambigua, commentaries par le Pere D. Stăniloae, Les Editions de l’Ancre, 1993. [52] Ambig. 22,1256D-1257A. [53] Ibidem 15,1217AB; 17,1228A-1229A. [54] Ibidem, 15,1217A. [55] Ibidem, 41,1312B-1313B. [56] Ibidem, 7,1072C. [57] Ambig. 7,1077C,1081BC;14,1313AB. [58] Ibidem, 7,1077C. [59] Ibidem, 7,1080B; 42,1328B,1329BC; 7,1081. [60] Ibidem, 7,1081AB,cf.42,1328B: “For in Him, all reasons are firmly established and it is said about these reasons that he knows them all before they are created, in their very truth, as ones which are in Him and to Him, even if all these that there are and will be have not yet been brought into existence along with their reasons, or since they have all been known by God, but each receives its effective existence in due time, after the wisdom of the Creator, since they have been created according to their reasons. Their Maker always exists eternally effectively – kat’energeian, whereas the creatures only exist potentially – dynamei, but not effectively”. [61] Ibidem, 7, 1081C, in: J.C. Larchet, op. cit., pp. 19-22. [62] Ambig. 1077C-1089D. [63] Alain Riou, Le monde et l’Eglise selon Maxime le Confesseur, Beauchesne, 1973. [64] 1077C-1081C11: 1. ontological formulation: logoi –Logos. a) small parts of God: the multitude of the creatures’ logoi and their unity into the Word who
http://dialogo-conf.com
participated to creation. The presence of logoi in Logos by preexisting and participating. b) have issued from above: the union of the creature and God is ensured by the conformity to the right logos according to which it was created in due time. This logos is in and at God1081C111085A6 2. the ascetic formulation: participating in Christ by virtues, our Saviour is the essence of all virtues (1Co1:30) for in Him „we live, and move”, and have our “being” (Acts 17: 28). Therefore, any man who participates in virtues, participates in Christ. The triad einai, eu einai, aei einai: a) man is “part of God” in three senses: as existing, through his logos which is in God as good, through his logos of good existence which is in God as God (through grace), through his logos of eternity which is in God; b) man “has fallen” (issued) from God, going further away from his own logos through his will 1085A7-C5. 3. the economical formulation: logoi as divine wills a) the reminding of the abyss that separates God from the creature. Since He is uncreated, God does not know the creatures in a created way (sensitive or intelligible) but, since they are created by His will, He knows them according to His own will; b) every man adheres to this will of God or rejects it as a manifestation of his free will - proairetike kinesis - Ibidem, pp. 46-47. [65] Ambigua 7,1077C. [66] Ambig. 7,1080AB. [67] Ibidem, pp. 55-56. [68] Div. Nom. 5, 8; P.G. 3,824C. [69] Pseudo-Cyril, De Trinitate, P.G. 77,1145C; Saint John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa I,9; P.G. 94,837. [70] Quest. ad Thal. 13; P.G. 90,293-296. [71] Ibidem, pp. 59-60. [72] Op. cit., p. 45.
- 163 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
DIALOGO
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.14 Constanta, ROMANIA - 2016, March 3
2.2; 164-173 (2015)
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
th e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy
Representations of God in Icons. Immanence and Transcendence in Christian Art Fr. Lect. Iulian ISBĂȘOIU, PhD Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Ovidius University Constanța, Romania iulianisbasoiu@yahoo.com
Abstract: Human desire to be in a more natural relationship with God, his Creator, caused the former to find different means of communication. In addition to the liturgical expression, materialized in prayer, another way of interaction is represented by the icon. The icon and through the icon, Heaven and earth, God and the members of the triumphant Church and the ones of the militant Church meet and communicate. The iconographic representation of God, symbols, events and holy Persons, gave rise to much controversy in history, which triggered a major conflict in the life of the Church, culminating in the eighth century iconoclastic dispute. The Seventh Ecumenical Council solved this dispute and placed the icon in its natural spiritual position. In the present study we will analyze and contrast how people have understood the freedom of representing the image of God the Father in icons, an issue which caused disputes and reactions due to exaggerations in artistic expression and misunderstandings linked to the limits of such representation. This evolution is considered historically in the Christian world, East and West, which shows either an exaggerated tolerance of representation or an
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
extreme conservatism leading to the prohibition of painting an anthropomorphic image of the Father. We will also study the recommendations of in the textbooks of Christian erminia and we will present examples of Romanian iconographic art. Keywords: icon, God the Father, Holy Trinity, iconoclasm, symbol, Orthodox, Romanian, art, painting I. INTRODUCTION People’s desire of a relationship with God has been materialized in the Christian art through various representations of the most important figures and symbols in the history and life of the Christian cult. Sacred art has always been perceived as a bridge between man and God, “a means of a relationship between two extremes: the divinity and man” acting “in what binds man to God: the human soul. But to act on the soul, on the conscience, on the awareness of the divine works, it takes a certain approach to pass through the body.” [1]This approach is embodied in the veneration of icons. Thus, iconographic representations have included symbols such as, the fish, the cross, the Christian monogram, and various major events and figures in
- 164 -
eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928 printISSN: 2457-9297, ISSN-L 2392-9928 ISBN 978-80-554-1208-5
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.14
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy the history of Christianity. The icon “is the verbal image of the liturgical texts on which the iconographer must feed and live to become a docile vehicle of the Spirit” [2] and “the epiphany of faces because the one who enters Light will become light.” [3] If regarding the representation of simple elements (the cross, the monogram, etc.), which in time became symbols of identity for Christianity, there were no major dissentions, the iconographic representation of figures triggered dramatic disputes that marked the first millennium of Christian life. Christianity placed in the centre of iconographic representations Jesus Christ as Man-God. Thus, “the Church brings to the world the image of Christ, the image of a man and of a universe renewed through Incarnation: a saving image” [4]. There is a strong link between “the icon and the figure it represents”, because “the icon is not a graven image, an idol deprived of any real existence, but it is a representation of holy person who actually exists, and we do not worship the matter of which the icon is made, but the person represented in the icon” [5]. The Christological controversies of the early centuries affected the perception of the presence of the iconographic representations of the Saviour. Some of those who defended the icons manifested their support to the border of desecration, wearing clothes adorned with embroidered icons, which showed an exaggerated veneration. This behaviour brought support for iconoclasts, who increased their number, and for believers who could not accept this worship carried to excess and gave up icons. In these circumstances, it was enough for an iconoclast leader to appear so that the persecution of icons started. This was Emperor Leo III the Isaurian, who, after removing the Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople, who refused to sign the decree against icons, brought in his place Patriarch Anastasius, the iconoclast who signed the decree in question. Thus, iconoclasm had triumphed, now with the endorsement of the Church. The situation changed during the reign of Empress Irene, when the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787) was convened and where it was decided for good the attitude towards the icon, its place and role in the life of the Church: “All toys, the childish and foolish jokes, the false
http://dialogo-conf.com
writings, and those that were done against the venerable icons, should be given to the bishop of Constantinople, to be put aside, along with other heretical books. And if they are people hiding them, be them a bishop or presbyter, or deacon, to be deposed, and be them lay people or monks, to be cursed” [6]. The horos of this synod argues for the reinstatement of the icon in its sacred rights, claiming that the icon is part of the Church tradition. It represents Christ who took us out of idolatry. Thus, “the word and image are intertwined because they speak about the same things, the mystery of Christ” [7]. The icon, as a sacred object, is placed next to the Cross, the Gospel and the worship vessels. Through it, the person represented is venerated, thus “the exterior cult brought to the icon is that of the veneration owed to sacred objects, nothing more” [8]. Saint Nikephoros of Constantinople stated that “the icon is not the natural image of the prototype, because otherwise iconoclasts would be right to say that it is impossible. It is an artificial image that has no prototype, it merely imitates it” [9]. He speaks about the icon as aspiration towards the model; Christ is not in the icon, but the icon is towards Christ. Thus, the icon produces an active effect through which we connect to the One represented in it [10]. Christian literature restores the icon to its sacramental status which offers our eye the opportunity to observe “higher things than any art form” [11]. After the Schema of 1054, the iconographic representation was treated differently in the West and the East. If the West was bolder in addressing the representation of sacred images, the East remained reserved. Therefore, our study focuses mainly on Western iconographic creation regarding the representation of God, because a representation of the Father in the Orient can be invoked only after the fall of Constantinople (1453), when modernist iconographic representations of the Holy Trinity began entering this space from the West. Some Orthodox theologians attributed this change to the Western propaganda to impose a doctrinal teaching of the Filioque. Constantin Cavanos states that “in one of iconographic representations, the Father is represented seated, holding the Son in His lap, as a young man, Who, in His turn, holds a dove in His hands” [12]. He also claims that after the sixteenth century “during
- 165 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y the Ottoman occupation of Greece and other Balkan countries, when the Orthodox peoples were cast into the darkness of ignorance, these paintings were predominant ... . The infiltration of these icons mainly happened through propaganda” [13]. Therefore, the Orthodox theologians, as we see from the Russian attitude, do not assume the paternity of the anthropomorphic representations of the Trinity. We will try to present the fact that the Orthodox Church continued, despite opposition, to represent the image of God, providing examples of Romanian iconographic practice. II. The Image of God the Father in Icons The iconographic representation of God the Father sprang from a desire of the Church to strengthen the dogmatic teaching about the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. As noted previously, the Seventh Ecumenical Council does not make a specific reference to the iconographic representation of God the Father. Thus “in the early representations of scenes from the Old Testament artists used the conventional depiction of Jesus in order to represent the Father, especially in representations of the life of Adam and Eve, the most common representation of a theme in the Old Testament that appears in early medieval art and for which was thought necessary that God be represented walking through the garden (Genesis 3, 8)” [14]. The images in which God the Father appeared multiplied since the twelfth century, when there was the passage from His representation as a hand to the anthropomorphic one, as a bust or as full stature. The attacks against the representation of the divine figures, especially of God the Father, continued in the Catholic and Protestant worlds. The Council of Trident tried to settle the issue by saying that it is not the picture that is worshipped but the person [15]. The participants in the council considered that it was better to keep in the Church the images of the Savior, the Virgin and the Saints, not because they had any special virtue but because by honoring them we could reach the original models. It is also mentioned that it had to be taken into account that the icon should represent the dogmas and superstitions should be avoided. Abiding by the sacredness of the place of worship,
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
the images should not be “of provocative beauty” [16]. III. Representation of the Father in the
Holy Trinity
God the Father was no longer represented alone but the whole Trinity in its entire composition. God the Father only appears in scenes such as, “Creation of Adam” (Sistine Chapel), the Assumption (Titian) in the Church of Jesus in Rome, with the painter Giovanni Baptista, etc. [17] Rubens’s painting, which represents God the Father in the most widely accepted manner, namely as a patriarchal figure with a beard, was readily adopted by artists. The sixteenth century Spanish painter Velasquez represented Him in the same manner. God the Father appears fewer times in painting than Jesus, which is only natural considering the humanity of the Saviour. In the Holy Scripture the Father was presented as a bright cloud (Ex. 13, 21, 19, 16-18; III Kings 19, 11-12; Matt. 17, 5), the Epiphany, the Transfiguration, the Pentecost, a hand that emerges from a cloud (Exodus 3,20; 13,16). In the Scripture, there are references to God’s eye (Second Book of Chronicles 16:19), the throne of God (Ezekiel 1, 26; Daniel 7,9) or a flame that appears in a bush (Exodus 3,1). Until the twelfth century there is no iconographic image of God the Father. The only depictions are in the form of a hand coming out of the clouds or the sky with outstretched fingers and the fingers, in certain miniatures, send out “rays of light like a living sun” [18]. Adolphe Napoléon Didron states that “most often this hand performs blessing and the first three fingers are open, while the little finger and the one next to it remain closed” [19]. That fact that God the Father is represented by the divine hand is confirmed by a Latin miniature in the ninth century [20], which shows the Baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ. We can see the Saviour, who is baptized by John the Baptist, the Holy Spirit as a dove and God the Father, represented by a hand surrounded by an aura that comes from heaven. Didron also mentions that “as the name of Jesus Christ comes down to two letters IC, the full figure of God the Father (Yahweh) is limited to one part of his body: one hand,” [21] even if, after the twelfth
- 166 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.14
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy century, the anthropomorphic representation of God appeared, either as a standing bust or as a hand, was perpetuated until the eighteenth century [22]. The hand appears with or without the aura, blessing with the fingers positioned as in the Greek blessing, or in certain medallions affixed to a halo with cross [23]. “Since the birth of Christ up to His return to heaven after His resurrection, the Father’s hand guides, blesses and supports the steps of the Son” [24]. The motif of the representation of the hand originates from the Old Testament, in which it was the expression of the sovereign power which served justice [25]. In a miniature of the eleventh century about the creation of the world, entitled by Didron “Unfledged God. The Father or the Son” [26], the Father was presented as an unfledged youth, just like the Son was often depicted. Didron reached this conclusion, speculating that the One who created the world was the Father [27]. In the thirteenth century, in some miniatures, there are two men of the same age and with the same figure. One of them holds a cross in His Hand and between the Two there is the Holy Spirit like a dove [28]. In time, the Father is represented differently from the Son. The Son remains at the age at which he was represented in the thirteenth century “thirty or thirty-three years old”, the Father, older, with longer hair, richer beard and lowered cheekbones. He is 25-30 years older than the Son [29]. When all the three Persons of the Trinity are presented in an anthropomorphic manner, in the Western iconography, God the Father appears as a father with two sons. He is older, with bigger head, the Son at the age of 30-33 years old and the Holy Spirit as an unfledged youth [30]. With the occurrence of these artistic creations, a mode of representation of the three Persons of the Trinity appears, when it comes to their anthropomorphic depiction: the Father ”counting many days”, as an older man, the Son, younger, of 25-30 years old, and the Holy Spirit as a young unfledged teenager [31]. The artist starts thinking in a natural manner, in relation to the reality of life. If until the fifteenth century, the Trinity was represented by the principle of equality of the three
http://dialogo-conf.com
Persons, all of the same age, with the same clothes and the same aura, beginning the sixteenth century “artists started to represent the Trinity either as three distinct Persons of different ages or as a body and three heads, to represent the dogma of the unity of being, with three completely distinct faces. Therefore, the Father is an old man, the Son is a mature man and the Holy Spirit a teenager” [32]. IV. The Attributes of God The Father in
Art
The attributes of God the Father in art are more noticeable since the twelfth century, when the three Persons of the Trinity are represented together. In some works, the Son appears holding the cross in His hand, the Holy Spirit as a dove and the Father without any particular detail, a representation of the One counting many days that gave birth to the Son and from whom the Holy Spirit was issued. One element that often accompanies the representation of the Father is the globe, which is “almost exclusively reserved for the Father, because the Father would be considered the main author of Creation, or because he would have more power” [33]. Didron used the expression “almost exclusively” because there are representations showing the globe either in the hands of the Son or in those of the Holy Spirit as an expression of the equality of the three People in the same being. Another characteristic element in representing the Father is the aura (halo), in a triangular or rhomboid shape, which is rarely encountered in representations of the Son or the Holy Spirit. The triangle symbolizes the Holy Trinity. Within the triangle, one can see the Greek letters - o on = “That who is” - (the text in Exodus 3:14), “I am That who is” or “I am Alpha and Omega” (to Revelation 1:8). Sometimes instead of a halo, there is golden triangle, a symbol of holiness” [34]. In a fourteenth century miniature, entitled by Didron “The Father Different form the San and the Holy Spirit” [35], the Father holds the globe in His hand, as a sign of paternal supremacy in equality, and the Son and the Holy Spirit both point their right hands to Him in recognition of His attribute of creator and as the first Person in the unit of being. As mentioned before, beginning the fourteenth century, distinctive elements of the three Persons
- 167 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y are clear: the age, the presence and the beard and hair length or the head size, all of which make the difference [36]. V. Excessive Humanization of God The
Father and the Return to Traditional Representation
Since the fifteenth century, in the West, each nation tried to represent God the Father clothed as the most powerful public person of that era. “In Italy, where the pope is everything, He had to be represented as the pope, in Germany, where the emperor is everything, He was dressed like an emperor, in France He was obviously dressed like a king” [37]. In time, this practice was abandoned due to the adverse reactions of the population to the pope, king or emperor. If between the fifth and nineteenth centuries, “art is serious, austere”, with the physiognomy painted or carved in general forms; between the ninth and thirteenth centuries, there is a certain boldness towards anthropomorphism; between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, familiarity in expression dominates, and after the fifteenth century, the expression of power reigns, “it took the great Italian artists of the Renaissance, Perugino, Raphael and Michelangelo to came into the world to create this formidable figure of eternity, Yahweh, the divine Elder that made the earth tremble, better than the ancient Jupiter, the figure with furrowed brows ...” [38]. God the Father is stripped of papal and royal elements, turned into a “divine beauty, a magnificent old man, so wise and powerful, the real man “counting many days” παλαιός τών ημερων of the Greeks” [39]. Thus, masterpieces are created: Baptism of Christ by Pietro Perugino; God the Father represented in the Assumption by Titian; Creation of the Sun and Moon and The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo; The Last Judgment and the Coronation of the Virgin by Rubens; the Coronation of Our Lady by Velázquez, etc. VI. The Russian Church and the ban
on God The Father’s Representations in Icons Citing the decisions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which stated that God the Father could
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
not be represented, the Russian theologian Leonid Uspensky believes that “we can represent anything, because human imagination has no limits. But the fact is that not everything can be represented. There are a lot of things about God that not only that cannot be represented in pictures, but they are quite inconceivable to humans. When it speaks of the impossibility of obtaining an image of God the Father, the Synod refers precisely to its inconceivable and unknowable nature. We only have one key to apprehend the Holy Trinity: the Father is known through the Son (John 12, 45; John 4, 9) and the Son through the Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 12, 3)” [40]. The representation of God the Father is seen as a “release (of the painter, our note) from the Church and dogmas, trying to place himself outside the creation of the church” [41], yet “the canon does not mean isolation, but precisely the incorporation within the creation of the Church” [42]. He speaks about the representation of God the Father as an error “which was widespread in the Orthodox Church especially since the seventeenth century” [43]. Starting from the statement that “the Seventh Synod speaks of the absence of the image of God the Father, disincarnated, invisible and therefore non representable”, the Russian theologians highlight the difference between “the ability to represent the Son (since He was incarnated) and the inability to portray the Father”, and claim to have “the right to conclude that the Council states the inability to represent God - the Father from a doctrinal point of view of the Church” [44]. This is the reason why the Russian Church banned the iconographic representation of God the Father in the Synod in Moscow in 1666-1667. This is noticed when it is claimed that “the image of the Father unmade by man, who is Christ himself, an image shown in the Body of the Lord and turned visible, is a dogmatic fact” [45]. From the above mentioned statements, it seems that the only representation of the Father, accepted by the Russian Church, is one of the oaks of the Mamvri episode, in which the eternal Father appears as angel-faced. “Other trinity symbols - for example, the One counting many days, the lamb, the dove, three People sitting on the same throne - were represented. But, in our opinion, no representation is so appropriate as Roubliov’s icon to “introduce” the believer in the reality of the living of the three People” [46], says father Lev Gillet. Describing the
- 168 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.14
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy works of Roubliov, he says that the angel who is in the centre is the Father. His right hands pointing to the plateau suggests the sacrifice in which we are invited to participate. The angel to the right of the table is the Son who, like the Father, has a sad figure, his head tilted to confirm acceptance of sacrifice. The angel to the left of the table is the Holy Spirit. His gaze is directed towards the Son, the focus being on what the Son will do. His eyes expressed “sympathy and compassion” [47]. Drawing a parallel between the sacred paintings of Raphael and those of Roubliov, L. Uspensky said that “although Raphael drew differently from Roubliov, he saw it in the same manner, according to the law of the visual perception itself. The difference consisted in the fact that Raphael subjected the natural vision of the human eye to the autonomous control of his reason, moving thus away from that vision. The icon painters, however, remained loyal to it, not moving away from it, not only because the meaning of their representation did not require it, but it did not allow the overcoming of the natural perception of the first plan, which limited the icon structure” [48]. VII. Guidelines for Representations of
God The Father in Byzantine Iconography Textbooks We have noticed that the Russian Church decided to ban the depiction of God the Father in iconography, except for the icon reproducing the three angels appearing to the oak of Mamvri. In the other Orthodox countries, God the Father is discreetly represented in iconography in some biblical episodes. We will reproduce some excerpts from two textbooks that recommend the manner in which these scenes should be depicted. God the Father appears represented either by word or anthropomorphically, in the form of an angel or an old man. In two scenes representing episodes from the Old Testament the words of God the Father appear, when he commanded Noah to make the ark: “Noah standing and looking up and above him the sky, and a beam of light coming down to him, and inside the beam these words, ‘Make a wooden boat’, in four angles for ‘behold I will bring a flood upon the earth’” [49]; and to Abraham to leave his land: “the sky above him and a ray coming down to him
http://dialogo-conf.com
and in the middle of the beam the words ‘Get out of your land and your relatives’” [50]. The words of God the Father are represented in the icon of the Baptism of Christ: “Christ standing naked in the middle of Jordan and on the river bank, on Christ’s right, the Forerunner looking up, his right hand on Christ’s head and in the left one stretching up he keeps shepherd’s cane. And the sky above and from it the Holy Spirit descending like a dove with a beam of light on Christ’s head, in the midst of the ray the words ‘This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased’” [51]. God can be represented in the form of a burning bush: “Moses untying his shoes, and sheep about him and before him a bush burning, and in the middle of the bush in a gray blue circle Virgin Mary with the baby and somewhere near the bush, a angel looking at Moses ... “ [52]. The scene representing the participation of the Holy Trinity in the Divine Liturgy is described by Dionysius of Furna in the following manner: “The baldaquin and underneath the table the Holy Gospel, and the Holy Ghost above the Gospel, and the Father of no beginning close, sitting on the chair, blessing and reading from a paper ‘from the womb before the morning star I have begotten Thee’. And on the right side of the table Christ, in priest’s clothes and blessing ...”. The Holy Spirit is represented as a dove above the Gospel [53]. In this scene God the Father appears, as seen in churches, in the image of a long white bearded old man. He may be represented in an anthropomorphic manner in the icon describing the creation of Adam. “Adam as a beardless young man naked and the Father of no beginning, before him in much light, holding him with His left hand and blessing him with His right hand; and around them clouds (fog) and hills, trees and fruit and fragrant flowers, and many kinds of animals and above the sky and the moon” [54]. The icon widely accepted in the whole orthodoxy, the revelation of the Holy Trinity to the oak of Mamvri, is presented as follows: “a house and three angels sitting at a table, having a calf head before them on a platter, bread and other food dishes ...” [55]. God the Father can also be represented in an anthropomorphic manner in the icon of the Descent of the Holy Spirit: “A house. The 12 Apostles sitting in a circle. Above them a small vault the middle of which an elderly man holds in His hands,
- 169 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y in front of Him, a tablecloth in which there are 12 rolled papyrus; He has a crown on his head. Above Him the inscription ‘The World’. Above the house the Holy Spirit as a dove, a great light surrounding everything. 12 flames come out of the dove and are placed on each of the apostles” [56]. VIII. Representations of God The Father
in Romanian Iconography
Due to the historical context that characterized the Romanian lands, the art of iconographic representation is very rich. The three Romanian principalities were under the domination of the West (Transylvania) and the East (Wallachia and Moldavia). Therefore, iconographic Romanian art has influences from the Christian world, both from the East and the West. Romanian Christian art does not lack any of the specific symbols of representation in Christian iconography. We will mention only a few examples to justify this claim. The Romanian monasteries and churches were painted with scenes in which the globe appears in the icons in which the Holy Trinity is represented. Thus, Snagov Monastery shows “the One counting many days and the Saviour seated on a bench, with the globe at Their feet”; Sucevița monastery depicts “two angels holding the globe” and at the Episcopal Church of the Roman we see “The One counting many days holding the globe, the Savior the Gospel and the dove flying above them” [57]. An image from Nicula Monastery displays the Father and Son “holding both the globe, on which the cross is placed with the dove on top, and under the arms of the cross, the inscription NIKA appears” [58]. There is also a representation in which “the dove occupies the central place, surrounded by a bright halo, the Father and the Son sitting on the throne. The Son, in clothes of the era, is holding the paper on which are written people’s sins, which he crushes” (the church from Stăneşti) [59]. An image rarely seen in iconography is a representation of the Holy Trinity as the bust of Jesus with three heads (the church in Tălmăcel, jud. Sibiu), or a bishop, also with three heads (the icon, painted in 1853, by Ion Pop iconographer from Făgăraș)” [60]. The imagination of painters is also visible with the Romanians in Transylvania. Thus, at the
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
church in Densuș (15th century), in the altar “on a blue background is depicted God the Father, with white hair, closely tied in two tails fallen on His shoulders, with beard and white robes. He keeps his hands on the shoulders of the child Jesus, dressed in a white shirt, reminiscent through its decoration, of peasant shirts. Jesus blesses with His right hand and in the left hand he holds a woven candle. On the head of God the Father is painted the dove, whose head with a halo goes beyond the panel. The composition is probably the work of a painter with a preference for the popular element, a characteristic of Transylvanian panting” [61]. A common theme in Romanian iconography, inspired by the Western tradition is the participation of the Holy Trinity in the coronation of Our Lady. It is found at Sucevița, at the Episcopalian church in Roman (the altar) and at Răşinari (1750), St. Catherine’s church in Bucharest, the New Saint George, Colţea Church, etc.” [62].“Sinaia Monastery keeps an icon of the seventeenth century, representing the Holy Trinity under the appearances of the three angels fed by Abraham and which has been characterized as ‘the most beautiful Romanian icon of the picture achievements of the age” [63]. God the Father is also represented taking part in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. The scene is found at Cozia monastery, where “the three persons appear depicted vertically: the Father above, framed by two seraphims, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ high priest at the altar, officiating the Divine Liturgy.” [64]
Conclusions The relationship between the Creation and the Creator, between man and God, the desire for communication and communion is the consequence of the fact that God created man in His own image and man has been trying to communicate with the One who gave him the breath of life through various means. One of these means is represented by the icon. The iconographic representation of God in the Trinity or of each individual Person was understood beyond its spiritual and didactic purpose and gave birth to the iconoclastic dispute that was solved in dogmatic and symbolic terms at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.
- 170 -
Iconographers strove to offer Christians the
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.14
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy image of the invisible God with a desire to bring the transcendent into the immanent. Thus, either on portable icons or on the walls of the holy churches God in the Holy Trinity was represented in different historical moments. The anthropomorphic representation of God the Father was considered an act of courage, which in the view of some Christian communities, we refer here to the Russian Orthodox, was an exaggeration as He could not be represented in human form. Moreover, in a Seventeenth century Synod, the Russian church, considering itself a defender of genuine Christianity, banned the painting of God the Father in any form. This decision did not affect the entire orthodoxy because, as we have seen from the study, God the Father has continued to be represented in the other Orthodox churches. The anthropomorphic representation of God the Father is also recommended in textbooks of Orthodox erminia. This practice does not violate the decisions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council which states nothing specifically about the iconographic representation of the Persons of the Trinity.
References [1]
[2]
[3] [4]
[5]
[6]
Iegor Reznikoff, La transcendance, le corps et l’icone, dans le fondement de l’art sacré et de la liturgie, vol. Actes du colloque Nicée II 787-1987, douze siècles d’images religieuses (Paris, 1986), ed. Le Cerf, 1987, https://www. google.ro/?gws_rd La transcendance, le corps et l’icone, dans le fondement de l’art sacré et de la liturgie. Michel Quenot, L’icône: un art théologique pour notre temps. L’art sacré de l’icône, in Lumière du Tabor, nr. 19, sept. 2004, p. 2. Ibidem. p. 3. Leonide Uspensky, Teologia icoanei în Biserica Ortodoxă [Theology of the Icon in the Orthodox Church], trans. Theodor Baconsky, Ed. Apologeticum, electronic edition, 2006, p. 44. 5 Pr. prof. dr. Isidor Todoran, Arhid. prof. dr. Ioan Zăgrean, Teologia dogmatică [Dogmatic Theology], Cluj, 1997, p. 265. “Canon 9 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council”, in Arhid. prof. dr. Ioan N. Floca, Canoanele Bisericii Ortodoxe [Canons of the Orthodox Church], 1991, p. 159.
http://dialogo-conf.com
Alain Besançon, Imaginea interzisă. Istoria intelectuală a iconoclasmului de la Platon la Kadinsky [The Forbidden Image: An Intellectual History of Iconoclasm], trans. Mona Antohi, București: Ed. Humanitas, 1996, p. 134. [8] Ibidem. [9] Ibidem, p. 140. [10] See more details in Marie Jose Mondzain, Image, Icon, Economy: The Byzantine Origins of the Contemporary Imaginary, trans. Rico Franses, Stanford University Press, 2005. [11] Alain Besançon, Imaginea interzisă... [The Forbidden Image...], op. cit., p. 149. [12] Constantin Cavanos, Ghid de iconografie bizantină [Guide of Byzantine Iconography], trans. Anca Popescu, București: Ed. Sofia, 2005, p. 164. [13] Ibidem. [14] Adolphe Napoléon Didron, Christian Iconography: or The history of Christian Art in the Middle Ages, Volume 1, 2003, pp. 167170, apud Wikipedia, Dumnezeu Tatăl în artă [God the Father in Art]. [15] Wikipedia, God the Father ..., op. cit., note 14. [16] Alain Besançon, Imaginea interzisă... [The Forbidden Image ....], op. cit., pp. 187-188. [17] Wikipedia, God the Father ..., op. cit., note 16. [18] Adolphe Napoléon Didron, Iconographie chrétienne. Histoire de Dieu, p. 207 [19] Ibidem. See the miniature engraved on a manuscript in the tenth century, The open rays hand Ibidem, p. 208. [20] Manuscrisul Liber [The Free Manuscript] such as, apud Adolphe Napoléon Didron, Ibidem, p. 210. [21] Adolphe Napoléon Didron, Iconographie chrétienne..., op. cit., p. 211. [22] Ibidem. [23] Ibidem, p. 212. [24] Ibidem, p. 213. [25] Ibidem, p. 215. [26] Adolphe Napoléon Didron, Iconographie chrétienne..., op. cit., p. 218. [27] Ibidem, p. 219. [7]
- 171 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y Ibidem, p. 220. Ibidem, p. 222. [30] Ibidem, p. 223. [31] Ibidem, p. 223. [32] Ibidem, p. 225. [33] Ibidem, p. 227. [34] Wikipedia, God the Father in Art, op. cit. [35] Adolphe Napoléon Didron, Iconographie chrétienne. Histoire de Dieu, p. 223, fig. 61. [36] Adolphe Napoléon Didron, Iconographie chrétienne. .., op. cit., pp. 228-229. [37] Ibidem, p. 230. [38] Ibidem, p. 235. [39] Ibidem. [40] Leonide Uspensky, Teologia icoanei în Biserica Ortodoxă [Theology of Icon in the Orthodox Church], trans. Theodor Baconsky, Ed. Apologeticum, electronic edition, 2006, p. 73. [41] Ibidem p. 151. [42] Ibidem, p. 152. [43] Ibidem, p. 73. [44] Ibidem. [45] Leonide Ouspensky, L’image du Christ non faite de main d’homme; in Lumière du Thabor, nr. 19, sept. 2004, p. 13. [46] Père Lev Gillet, “La signification spirituelle de l’icône de la Sainte Trinité d’André Roubliov”, in rev. La lumière du Thabor, sept. 2004, nr. 19, p. 9. [47] Ibidem, pp. 10-11. [48] Leonide Uspensky, Teologia icoanei în Biserica Ortodoxă [Theology of Icon in the Orthodox Church], op. cit., p. 147. [49] Dionisie de Furna, Erminia picturii bizantine [Erminia of Byzantine Painting], București: Editura Sofia, 2000, p. 69. [50] Ibidem, p. 70. [51] Ibidem, p. 103. [52] Ibidem, pp. 73-74. [53] Ibidem, p. 215. Another representation recommendation: “A dome. Below a table with the Gospel, above the Holy Spirit. Besides, the Eternal Father seated on the throne, blesses with His holy hands and says, ‘Before Lucifer I begot you’. To the right of the table, Christ [28] [29]
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
robed in priestly clothing blessing”, Manuel d’iconographie chrétienne grecque et latine, translated from the Byzantine manuscript „Le guide de la peinture” by Paul Durand, Paris, 1845, p. 229. [54] Dionisie de Furna, Erminia picturii bizantine [Erminia of Byzantine Painting], op. cit., p. 68. The scene is also described in the following manner: “Young unfledged Adam, standing naked. The Eternal Father in front of him, surrounded by a bright light, holds him by the left hand. Around them, trees and various animals. Above, the sky with the sun and the moon”, Manuel d’iconographie chrétienne op. cit., pp. 78-79. [55] Dionisie de Furna, Erminia picturii bizantine [Erminia of Byzantine Painting], op. cit., in Cuvânt înainte [the Foreword], p. 71. [56] Manuel d’iconographie chrétienne grecque et latine, translated from the Byzantine manuscript „Le guide de la peinture” by Paul Durand, Paris, 1845, p. 205. [57] Mihai D. Radu, Reprezentarea Sfintei Treimi în pictura bisericilor românești [Representation of the Holy Spirit in the Painting of Romanian Churches], http://www.crestinortodox.ro/ religie/reprezentarea-sfintei-treimi-picturabisericilor-romanesti-69450 html, pp. 10-11. [58] Ibidem, p. 15. [59] Ibidem, p. 11 [60] Ibidem, p. 15. [61] Ibidem, p. 12. [62] Ibidem, pp. 13-14. [63] Ibidem , p. 14. [64] Ibidem, p. 10
BIOGRAPHY Iulian Isbasoiu was born in Mizil, Romania at the 22nd of July, 1966. He graduated the Theological Seminary of Buzau in 1993, the University of Theology in Bucharest where he finished his bachelor degree in liturgical theological studies in 1993. He graduated the University of Catholic Theology of the ”Marc Bloch” University of Strasbourg and received the title of Doctor of Theology with the doctoral thesis: „Culte et religion populaire dans l`Eglise Orthodoxe. Le mariage chez les Roumains Orthodoxes a l`aube du XXI-e siecle”.
- 172 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.14
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy He worked as a Teacher at the Theological Seminary and as a Cultural Adviser at the Archiepiscopate of Tomis. In the present he works as a Priest at the ”Saint John the Baptiser” church in Constanta and as an Assistant Professor at the University of Theology of the Ovidius University of Constanta. Among his publications ones of the most remarkable are: „Culte et religion populaire dans l`Eglise Orthodoxe. Le mariage chez les Roumains Orthodoxes a l`aube du XXI-e siecle”, French, ed. Vasiliana, Iaşi, 2008, „The implementation challenges of the Bologna process in theological orthodox university education in Romania – the dialogue between church and state”, International Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences & Arts, Albena, Bulgaria, 3-9th of September 2014, vol. III Psychology, psychiatry, sociology, healthcare education, pp. 913-925: „Church architecture in the romanian orthodox church. The romanian architectural church styles”, International Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences & Arts, Albena, Bulgaria, 3-9th of September 2014, vol. History of arts, contemporany arts, performing arts, visual arts, architecture, design, pp. 577-585. Assist. Prof. Dr. Iulian Isbasoiu is currently within the Church as a priest and the University as assistant professor.
http://dialogo-conf.com
- 173 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
DIALOGO
2.2; 174-182 (2015)
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.15 Constanta, ROMANIA - 2016, March 3
th e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy
God’s immanency in Abraham’s response to revelation: from providence to omnipresence Fr. Lect. Cosmin Tudor CIOCAN, PhD Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Ovidius University of Constanta Romania cosmin.ciocan@univ-ovidius.ro
Abstract: My assertion is that God’s biblical image may not reflect entirely His existence in itself as well as His revealed image. Even if God in Himself is both transcendent and immanent at the same time, and He is revealing accordingly in the history of humankind, still the image of God constructed in the writings of the Old Testament is merely the perspective made upon God by His followers to whom the He has revealed. That could be the reason why for centuries God’s biblical image seems to emphasize more His immanence, starting with Pentateuch, where God cohabites with Adam on Earth, then He reveals Himself to Abraham and Moses and so on. Somewhere, after the Babylonian exile, the image suffers slightly differences tilting towards God’s transcendence. In a path already created and grounded by Israel’s ancestors, even this new color of transcendence bears the nuances of immanence. How can this be possible? Let’s take a look on the revelation received by Abraham from God and see how this can fit the profile. Instead of the transcendence of God regarded by others in the differentness of Yahweh appointed by Abraham in his walking out of Mesopotamia, I will prove otherwise, that Abraham is on the
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
contrary proving God’s immanency in this very differentness of His in relation with other gods by providence and omnipresence, indwelling His creation. Key words: differentness, gratefulness, deism, immanence, indwelling, revelation, faithfulness, worship, idols, the guardian spirit, Mesopotamia, land binding, Promised Land, omnipresence, cradle of life I. If the immanence would not be a
valid option then what?
In this paper we will apprehend what are the affected religious issues when speaking and accepting God’s immanency. First of all we can clearly see that a major result of this denial is precisely the threatening of the very existence of religion by the reign of deism; this existence is however proven even by the religious partisans of transcendence, with a different task of course, that of manifesting religiousness and gratefulness by any rational beings to their Creator, no matter if He find this out or not. It is In addition to that there are several other aspects putted at stake by the exclusion of immanency.
- 174 -
eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928 printISSN: 2457-9297, ISSN-L 2392-9928 ISBN 978-80-554-1208-5
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.15
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy One of the problems to discuss here is the religious ground of the versatile relationship between nature and free-will. This dialectical motive originated from secularization of the Christian Idea of creation and freedom, emancipating human personality from its religious dependence upon the God of Revelation. Considering only the transcendence of God, any of His relation with His creation will became superfluous, including God’s Revelation. This will be the end of any true, objective meaning given by religions upon everything, e.g. existence of man, of evil, bad or good; everything would go sideways for sure, moral and ethics would no longer exist for there is no axis mundi without a God immanent to his creation. Nothing would be bad any longer, as nothing would be good as well; every ethical consideration will be based only on subjectivity, either it is of a person, society, social context or any other subjectivity. „In a word, the Divine immanence is not the goal of our quest of God, but it is the indispensable starting-point.”[1] II. What should we understand from
God’s immanence, religiously speaking?
Traditionally, in Christian theology the immanence of God denotes God’s being or acting within humankind or within the world, in contrast to God’s transcendence, which denotes his being beyond or above humankind or the world. But this contrast alone is too simple. For in Christian theology God is both transcendent and immanent; these terms are complementary, not alternatives. Indeed, pantheism, not theism, regards God as entirely immanent in the world, without qualification. It is more accurate to regard God’s immanence as his animating and sustaining the world and humankind by his near presence, and God’s transcendence as denoting his otherness, holiness, and difference from the world and humankind. As immanent, God energizes the wills of human beings by his Holy Spirit; as transcendent he is never to be equalized with the world, the “All,” or his creatures, and his Spirit is holy. Pantheism and Deism are exaggerations of only one side of this dualism. Popular thought accuses sometimes the liberalism of urging God’s immanence, as Karl Barth and others urging his transcendence. But this would be a simplistic caricature, although
http://dialogo-conf.com
one can see why such a caricature is sometimes drawn and that it is not entirely invalid.[2] When speaking of God’s immanency we are talking about His indwelling within His creation, for immanence means nothing more abstruse than “indwelling”. According to the revelation given by God – directly or by any means – we don’t need to search for Him outside our universe, deep into the darkness or into the light, since “he is not far from any one of us, for in him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17.27-28). Such a conception that equals in the New Testament immanence-indwelling-omnipresence is a result of a long experience and theology, and not a concept emerged spontaneously without any previous experience whatsoever. This resultconception of immanence-omnipresence would be an interesting issue to be presented in this context, to see what the steps it took to become as shown in Acts 17 were. A. God’s ancient vision in Mesopotamia: the
guardian spirit
It is very clear that from the beginning of religion, in general, “god” was always conceived as immanent as could be, all until it ended up in animism, naturalism or Panentheism (e.g. totemism). Mankind needed gods that were so vivid with their presence among us that they could influence the nature of things and events in favor for those they favor. This theological conception of ancient religions led to a certain image of how gods should relate with mankind, that they must be protective and careful with those who sacrifice something for them. Among the pantheon of Mesopotamian gods, Nanna, the moon-god, was the supreme one, because he was the source of fertility for crops, herds, and families. Prayers and offerings were offered to the moon to invoke its blessing. In this context of partisanship – each group-tribe had his protective god who was pitting against any other tribe that had competitive interests – another theological vision emerged, rather similar, yet somehow new, that of Abraham’s. He had started with this prevailing image of the guardian spirit for he was born and raised in Ur of the Chaldees (Genesis 11.28) and his father along with all his family worshiped idols as all other inhabitants of Mesopotamia did. “And
- 175 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y Joshua said to all the people, “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Long ago, your fathers lived beyond the Euphrates, Terah, the father of Abraham and of Nahor; and they served other gods.” (Joshua 24. 2). Then the call of Abraham (Genesis 12.1) occurred from a different God, who wanted his servant to be as different as He is, that is why He asked Abraham to exit from everything knew, his kin, his house, the world known at that time and go to the edge of the world in search for that specific God that didn’t indwell in stone or wooden statues. Of course that was the beginning of the transcendent yet immanent God, for He tried everything to convince Abraham and his offspring, the Jews, that He is everything other gods are not. “Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord” (Joshua 24.14); In spite of all the differences Adonai proved, his selection over the other gods imitated the same pattern ancient world had, of following the one that guards you. That was the pattern of Mesopotamia imprinted in every words of Adonai and Jews, and I don’t consider this not because this is another false lead, instead it demonstrates the simple, immutable human sentiment of faithfulness mirrored also in the divine behavior: “For his loyal love towers over us, and the Lord’s faithfulness endures. Praise the Lord” (Psalm 117.2); “Moses reminds them of God’s faithfulness and love” (Deuteronomy 1.1). What was then the reason Abraham turned to Adonai instead of going the same religious road his family had ever since? We cannot assume that Abraham knew anything sundry or something important to make him change his religious views and orientation and take on a road completely new, and also accept exile without remorse and second thoughts despite the drawbacks and limitations this different path had. Withal there is no evidence that Abraham was aware of this new, different God prior to the calling He made unto him. So, the only reason left for us to consider his immovable decision is the different way of engaging people Adonai had. Unlike any other known god - distant objects of worship Yahweh made the first step, a direct, personal contact, exiting anonymity and impassibility and proving he takes care of His followers for real. As a worshiper of other gods, Abraham must have been surprised to receive a direct revelation
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
from Yahweh and he obeyed God’s strange call straight away. That was the engine that made Abraham reject any other so-called god that was incapable to prove himself as guardian other than conjectural and accidental. In other words, Abraham’s faith was certainly driven by the same need as anyone else’s, the need of protection, of care and redemption from a poor, vicious life, but the reason he turned side to Yahweh was very different from everybody else, for he had witnessed a vivid manifestation of a certain God; that made him change his life and follow his proved protector that had the ability to come into contact with man. The center of Abrahamic faith for Yahweh’s revelation is undeniable, even if there are many theologians that stress on the differentness of Yahweh comparing with other gods and promote the theology of God’s transcendence. This is merely the tradition of modern liberal theology – occasionally influencing some of the Orthodox theologians too – where neo-Orthodox Protestant theologians like Karl Barth (1886-1968) or Judaic rabbi such as Abraham Joshua Heschel (1907-1972) begin their theology not with divine revelation, but with human experience [3]. Coming forward with this emphasis on personal experience, it is hard not to accept the humanly side of religion and that it only makes God more transcendent and impassible. On the contrary, accepting and embracing revelation per se it is then natural to accept that God is immanent and indwelling among us, with us. It is obvious that this event with Abraham can be used for both godly attributes, but let us see further the vision recurrent in Judaic scripture to understand in what way they thought of Yahweh’s differentness. “Abraham obeyed God’s call, and, when he arrived in the land of Canaan, he built an altar to Yahweh at Shechem (Genesis 12.7). The text indicates that God’s appearance to Abraham was a deciding factor in his choosing to worship Him. Hebrews 11.8 says that Abraham’s departure from Ur was an example of faith in action.”[4] “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going” (Hebrews 11.8). B. God’s indwelling among creation
- 176 -
From the beginning of Abrahamic religion the
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.15
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy way he perceived God was that He is something else, different from other gods that surrounded Abraham. This differentness of Abraham’s God holds fast over time for all his descendants, so the same differentness will be observed in Egypt against Egyptians’ gods culminating in the first commandment of Decalogue. “I am Adonai your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the abode of slavery…” (Exodus 20. 1). Lots of texts emphasis the differentness of God, “describing Him as the ‘wholly independent’ in which epithet we hear echoes of Proclus’s doctrine of the autarky of God”[5]: “Let it be according to your word, that you may know that there is no one like the Lord our God” (Ex. 8.0) and other coming from both sides, either God’s or Prophets’: Ex. 9.14 “you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth”; 15.11; Dt. 4.35, 39; 33.26; 2 Sa 7.22; 1 Ch. 17.20; Ps 86.8; Is 45.5-8; 46.9; Je 10.6, 7. But all this pleiade of demonstrating the differentness of Yahweh in which Old Testament’s Scripture abounds are driven by the same pattern that have boosted Abraham to renounce everything and take the path the revealed God told him to walk: Adonai is the only real, alive God that can protect you for real against anything. There is always ecstasy along with underlining God’s incomparability, a joy that Jews are blessed to be chosen to receive His revelation, to be over-watched and guided by Him. “‘O Lord God, You have begun to show Thy servant Thy greatness and Thy mighty hand, for what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do anything like Thy works and Thy mighty deeds?” (Dt. 3.24). That is why an absolute transcendent conception of God in the context of ancient idolatry is very improbable, even if it is not deniable for several reasons not to be discussed here[6]. Instead it is most certainly an echo of a sentiment of recognition for God’s choice “Surely the Lord our God has shown us His glory and His greatness, and we have heard His voice from the midst of the fire.” (Dt. 5.24) Everything in the passages that have spoken about ‘God of Abraham’ and his descendants underlined that YAHWEH is God unlike any other god. And since all other gods where impregnated with and into the material world – through their animist conception and physical substance that stands as fabric for everything – the new image of God, Adonai, always brings into discussion the issue materialism to deny it. This is the recurrence
http://dialogo-conf.com
of all capital commandments (mitzvah) and the very base of the covenant closed with Jews. Halakhah (The sacred mitzvoth, Jewish Law) stresses on the duty to know God, that He exists, He is alive and Eternal (Ex. 20.3), that God is One, a complete Unity (Deut. 6:4) A text very suggestive on God’s indwelling among creation is Psalm 139.7-10: 7. “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? 8. If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths[7], you are there. 9. If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea, 10. Even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast.” By the time these words were written (~1000 BC) there was no presence or threaten from deism or pantheism, that is why the author of Psalm does not matter to suggest His presence everywhere in the material world and beyond (Heavens and Hell). David said that God’s presence couldn’t be eluded through space (verse 8), speed (verse 9), or darkness (verse 12). In other words, nothing in the universe can hide a person from God[8]. But, to a certain point this can only mean that Gods oversees everything and so it can be only taken as a base for godly sovereignty. It is a reasonable way of considering this kind of understanding God’s immanency according to the “world” view at that point. In rabbinic theology the main dogma is not God’s omnipresence, but the doctrine of God’s omniscience with a major impact on Judaic moral. “This great and self-evident truth, That God knows our hearts, and the hearts of all the children of men, if we did but mix faith with it and seriously consider it and apply it, would have a great influence upon our holiness and upon our comfort”[9]. That means that God’s everywhere-ness is not the central issue for the ‘elected people’, but His all-over-watch-ness is for there is no place on earth that his followers will not be the subject of His protection. Still, this omnipresence of God’s surveillance and watching over creation was hastily conceived as omnipresence of His existence in it, and we have to wonder what the basics of this
- 177 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y evolution of conceiving the godly omnipresence were. C. God’s differentness: land binding vs
omnipresence?
Every wangle of Yahweh to subdue Jews was meant to underline the huge differences between other gods and Him, Adonai. “Do not turn to idols or make for yourselves any gods of cast metal: I am the Lord, your God” (Leviticus 19.2). So, the idea of a God so different from other known gods was the core of Abrahamic adulation and it was transferred to his kin. Psalm 113.5-6: “Who is like the Lord our God, who is seated on high, who looks far down upon the heavens and the earth?” But this idea of Yahweh’s differentness was over-exaggerated in a later theological thinking and became His differentness from everything, a transcendent attribute that had nothing to do with the initial understanding and perception that Abraham had for this revealed God. Only with time passing and Jews becoming theologians instead of followers, the ‘the good shepherd’ became ‘God from above’ or ‘the Mighty from the heights’ (Ezek. 34.5; Job 31.1). The parallel between early and late texts of Old Testament [10] – (1) from the book of Genesis (1440-1400 BC) to the first Babylonian captivity Book of Jeremiah and the final section of 2 Kings (686 – 586 BC) and (2) Ezra to Malachi (516 – 400 BC) – ”shows that the requirement to bring offerings to the place of Yahweh’s choice is explicable in terms of a fundamental theological principle of Deuteronomy, rather than a contingency-plan associated with one or other of the centralizing reforms”[11]. Jeremiah, ‘the new Moses’, insists on the theme of the covenant between God and Israel and unto the fact that this protection of Yahweh is conditional and it can be broken by Israel’s apostasy with him following other gods. He, once again, stresses on the differentness of Yahweh and give an extra dimension of this term, incomparability. Jeremiah underlines that the Lord is a jealous, possessive Master that wants all his followers’ attention and faithfulness; He promises goods and wealth in return, but the condition is absolute: who wants to serve Him should do this without other religious alternative. Isaiah (his writings dated from the pre-exile period, 757 to 696 BC) emphasizes on
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Yahweh’s incomparability to other gods – “I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God” (Isaiah 45.5), while Jeremiah (whose writings are dated 626 to 585 BC, in the time of the 1st Babylonian exile, somewhere between 605- 539 BC) gain already a new interpretation for Yahweh’s differentness, now aiming more explicitly towards His omnipresence, but nevertheless he don’t lose the line of God’s immanence: « “Am I only a God nearby,” declares the LORD, “and not a God far away?” Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see him?” declares the LORD. “Do not I fill heaven and earth?” declares the LORD». (23.23-24). In consequence, it is unlikely for Jews, until the late 7th century BC, to grow a transcendent theology with Yahweh in the middle and nothing else following this type of theology. I say this because if their theology had been like that, a transcendent one, than it is awkward that, for a long period of time, the only transcendent element for them was God; nothing else in their religious teaching stood to support such an assumption. Starting from the generic ‘promised land’[12] to the whole image of ‘election of God’ – everything is more than mundane, no transcendence, no out-of-this-world-ness. That ‘promised land’ was not even related with Eden, the cradle of life, God’s garden, and His place of walking by with Adam. It has nothing to do with remaking what Adam did wrong; in their understanding of Canaan there was not even a slightest idea of rebuilding the lost garden of heaven. ‘A land flowing with milk and honey’ (Exodus 3.8, 17; 13:5; 33:3; Lev. 20:24; Num. 13:27; Dt. 26:9; 26:15; Jer. 11:5; 32:22; Ezek. 20:6) bears the image of Eden without a heavenly recognition of God-man relation’s spirituality. The enormous recurrence of this idea was meant to give people a clue about a God that can indwell in different places if He has a partner to live with. Without knowing, Jews’ theology of ‘the Canaan’ vis-à-vis ‘Eden’ was but the beginning of the idea that God is everywhere, that He cannot be restricted to a certain place, even if that place is Eden or Canaan. Building a ‘promised land’ elsewhere than in the old emplacement of Eden, was the very ground for God’s omnipresence. That was probably one of the reasons the ‘revealed God’ told Abraham to move from Mesopotamia, instead of helping him concur it as the emplacement of what once was Eden. If God had made Abraham king of
- 178 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.15
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy that ancient, ancestry cradle of life, He would have most probably built a theology of God’s placement, the ‘land binding’ – one that Jews eventually built, “Our fathers adored on this mountain: and you say that at Jerusalem is the place where men must adore” (John 4.20). But Yahweh has chosen a different path, to make Abraham leave that old place of Eden as a degenerate, corrupt one that had nothing to do with the first God-man encounter anymore; He has instead promised to Abraham that they will rebuild (Latin re-ligo, -are) this true relationship in a different place, a new one, inhabited with people who believe in the true, only ‘God of heaven and earth’.[13] But the fact of God’s abiding in a heaven ever so high does not prevent him from being at the same time also on earth. Therefor Yahweh’s revelation unto Abraham was just the first in a row of God’s demonstration of His indwelling in all the creation. ‘God of heaven and earth, and in the highest heavens of heavens’ is the text of a prayer recited every day to raise awareness of His presence everywhere. The fact of God’s appearing later to Moses in a bush is taken as a proof that there is no spot on earth be it ever so lowly which is devoid of the divine presence [14]. The practical outcome of the current denial of the immanent idea to Rabbinic Judaism is seen in the comparison usually drawn between the “inwardness” of the Christian faith and the “outwardness” of traditional Judaism.[15]
In conclusion My assertion is that God’s biblical image may not reflect entirely His existence in itself as well as His revealed image. I say this maybe under the influence of a later course on Religious literacy I have attended at Harvard this year, where the main idea was in fact Donna Haraway’s concept of “situatedness”[16]. But, my guess is that, even if God is both transcendent and also immanent in the same time and He is revealing to His believers accordingly in the history of humankind, still the image of God constructed in the writings of the Old Testament is merely the perspective made upon God by His followers to whom the he has revealed. That could be the reason why for centuries God’s biblical image seems to emphasize His immanence, starting with
http://dialogo-conf.com
Pentateuch, where God cohabites with Adam on Earth, then He reveals Himself to Abraham and Moses and so on. Somewhere, after the Babylonian exile the image suffers slightly differences towards God’s transcendence, in a path already created and grounded by Israel’s ancestors, even this new color of transcendence bears the nuances of immanence. How can this be possible? I took a look on the revelation received by Abraham from God to see how this can fit the profile I made for God’s biblical image. The emerged thesis is somehow different from other biblical exegesis and it could be add to them. Looking at the construction of the ideas in the Old Testament, St. Augustin said once that “In the Old Testament the New Testament is concealed; in the New Testament the Old Testament is revealed” developing from the typological theory of biblical interpretation. This method was inaugurated by St. Paul and later posed in contrast with the allegorical interpretation applied to narratives in the Hebrew Scriptures by the Jewish philosopher Philo (died A.D. 50). For the former method the key persons, actions, and events in the Old Testament are viewed as “figurae” (Latin for “figures”) which are historically real themselves, but also “prefigure” those persons, actions, and events in the New Testament that are similar to them in some aspect, function, or relationship. On the contrary, for the latter these are something similar to myths as allegorical representations of abstract cosmological, philosophical, or moral truths. Origen, for instance, said that Abraham’s marriage to Keturah was not actual, but represents that there is no end to the getting of wisdom. In the light of “situatedness” I think that real facts, characters and events occurred in biblical period of OT were regarded from the perspective of a fugitive people, who needed help and protection to demarcate itself from the surrounding tribes and peoples, and who get this divine intervention on Abraham as an aid for their purpose. Instead, Abraham was a biblical character that somehow does not fit into the profile of most others in OT and I say that because the new religion emerged in Egypt from his kin and as a consequence of God’s blessing upon him (Genesis 12.1-3) and carried on for his
- 179 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y offspring till the end of time (Genesis 28.3), had a paradoxical appellation. It bears the name of Moses – Mosaic faith, leMoshe miSinai (“given to Moses on Sinai”), and not of that who inherited the ‘promised land’ over his strong belief and uncorrupted faithfulness, Abraham. Therefore, a religion grew from the blessed offspring of Abraham turned its attention to the lawgiver Moses, but invoked always the fundamental reason why this religion even exists, Abraham’s faithfulness and his call from God, «And he (Adonai, n.n.) said (to Moses, n.n.), “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.”» (Exodus 3.7 etc.). The fact that the image of Yawheh has this construction in the writings of OT proves that the revelation of God is not necessarily incomplete in OT – as St. Augustin implied on St. Paul’s words, “All these people were known for their faith, but none of them received what God had promised. God planned to give us something very special so that we would gain eternal life with them” (Hebrews 11.39-40). From this view God’s self-revelation is like a construct, brick by brick, to a final truth; but this theory cannot face the reproof that the biblical revelation has contradictions and it tries to cover them with the Augustinian principle. My paper proves that God is transcendent and immanent in Himself and is reveling accordingly from the beginning, no changes, no contradictions, only the same truth, revealed as it is. “God is not like people. He tells no lies. He is not like humans. He doesn’t change his mind.” (Numbers 23.19) Because of His immutability “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13.8). But for people who received this revelation the obvious truth was always seen from their perspective, from their situation and position, as ‘elected people’. „The immanent factor, as well as the transcendent one, defining and conditioning the existence of a nation, supporting its guidelines of life, bind in a certain order and constitute a law of its existence. The ‘Law of nation’ is a notion that concerns only those moral rules that people of the land obey in their behavior in accordance with their inland structure, so that they become in their out manifestation, what they actually are in their essence. For these people, the ‘law of the land’ is inseparable not only to their consciences, but also to their existence.”[17]
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
A religion without transcendence, steeped in the fullest immanence becomes a utilitarian religion [18]. Since the immanence of divinity, preserved in its purest form, comes to be confused with the world in pantheism, as transcendence lacking of immanence halts in deism. On the other hand, in the absence of immanence, any religion is deprived of its centerpiece, Divine Revelation. Without any manifestation whatsoever from a being it cannot be know or even thought – the ontological argument read in reverse. „If He is to be known at all to us, He can only be so known by being manifested through His presence within, or action upon, the finite and comprehensible sphere. In other words, it is primarily as He is revealed in and through the finite world, that is to say as immanent, that God becomes knowable to us.”[19]
References [1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
- 180 -
J. Warschauer, M.A., D.Phil., Problems of immanence. Studies Critical and Constructive. London: James Clarke & Co., 2007, 14. Thiselton, Anthony C., The Thiselton companion to Christian theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015, 1080. Shai Held, Abraham Joshua Heschel: The Call of Transcendence. Indiana, USA: Indiana University Press, 2013, 72. As the author underlines, these types of liberal thinkers reject the few possibilities God’s revelation has to bring God down to man; „he commences not by asking what it is that God has revealed, but rather…by asking what aspects of human nature and experience can render us receptive to revelation” and this makes Revelation not important for what it says, but for the fact the it can be perceived by certain persons. And this leads us to another problem: was Abraham special build to receive the word (radical predestination), or he was only elected by God to receive it, without anything special but his power of believing and following this path (and that is only a prove of forth-seeing of God over the choice Abraham would have make unlike others). John H. Walton, Genesis: The NIV Application Commentary. Zondervan, 2001. At http://
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2.15
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy www.gotquestions.org/Abraham-religion. html [5] T. A. M. Fontaine, In Defence of Judaism, Abraham Ibn Daud: Sources and Structures of Ha-Emunah. (transl. From the Dutch by H.S. Lake). The Netherlands: Van Gorcum & Comp, 1990, 94. [6] At least we can point out for some texts that were taken into consideration by k. Barth to sustain the ‘Deus absconditus’, the hidden God conception: Ex 19.18-19 “the Lord descended upon it (Sinai) in fire. Its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and 3the whole mountain quaked greatly”, Dt 4.33 “Did any people ever hear the voice of a god speaking out of the midst of the fire, as you have heard, and still live?”, et. al. See more in Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson (editors), A History of Biblical Interpretation, Vol. 2: The Medieval Though the Reformation Period. Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009, 50, 313 etc. [7] After New International Version of Bible (NIV). https://www.biblegateway. com/passage/?search=Psalm%20 139&version=NIV. In the King James Version (KJV) the word is Hell, “if I make my bed in hell, behold, Thou art there” and in the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) the name is Sheol, “if I lie down in Sh’ol, you are there”. [8] Don Stewart, Is God Everywhere at Once? (Omnipresent), at http://www.blbclassic.org/ faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=364 [9] h t t p : / / w w w . b i b l e s t u d y t o o l s . c o m / commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/ psalms/139.html [10] See the Wellhausen hypothesis to Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin, 1882; 3rd ed., 1886; Eng. trans., Edinburgh, 1883, 1891; 5th German edition, 1899; first published in 1878 as Geschichte Israels; English translation Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, Forgotten Books, 2008, ISBN 978-1-60620-205-0. Also available on Project Gutenberg, http://www. gutenberg.org/ebooks/4732?msg=welcome_ stranger. [11] James Gordon McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy. Great Britain: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1986, 61.
http://dialogo-conf.com
In fact, ( ץֶרֶאeh’-rets) “land,” is the fourth most frequent substantive in the Hebrew Bible. H. H. Schmid, “ ”ץֶרֶאTheologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament, Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, eds. (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971), 1:227-35, esp. 234. [13] There are also many other elements in Judaic theology before Christ that indicates their conception of a mundane kingdom, co-inhabited by Yahweh and his followers, but it is not the place or the length of this paper to discuss them further. E.g. the place of universal judgement will be on Earth, in the Valley of Jehoshaphat (Joel 3.2) – this kind of judgement Judaism asserts has this mundane dimension for it serves only the interests of ‘elected people’, Israel. Situated in the desert of Teqo’a near Khirbet Berêkût, west of the Khirbet Teqû’a (about eleven miles from Jerusalem), this place that should be accompanied with fever and tremors for the mighty judgement of the Right One, this valley is instead euphemistically called by the Jews êmêq Berâkâh (“valley of blessing”) for it will be the place where Yahweh will bring glory to Jews over the other nations. Somehow, this landscape remains in the Christian eschatology even if it aims toward a transcendent, universal, unbiased judgement, a mistake understandable due to the Judaic authorship of Book of Revelation. [14] S. Schechter, M.A., Litt.D., Some aspects of rabbinic theology. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1999, 29. [15] J. Abelson, M.A., D. Lit., The Immanence of God in Rabbinical Literature. London: Macmillan and Co., 1912, 15. [16] The historian of science Donna Haraway’s assertion that “situated knowledges” are more accurate than the “god-trick” of universal or objective claims that rest on the assumption that it is possible to “see everything from nowhere.” Contrary to popular opinion, the recognition that all knowledge claims are “situated” is not a manifestation of relativism whereby all interpretations are considered equally valid. Rather, “situated knowledges” offer the firmest ground upon which to make objective claims that are defined not by their detachment but rather by their specificity, transparency and capacity for accountability. [12]
- 181 -
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y Pr. Prof. dr. Ilie Moldovan, Actualitatea gândirii părintelui Dumitru Stăniloae cu privire la etnic şi etnicitate, în „Caietele Universităţii „Sextil Puşcariu” - Braşov Anul II • Nr.2 • vol. III – 2002, 44. Sursa online: https://archive.org/stream/Dumitru_ Staniloae-Arhiereul_Ortodoxiei_Romanesti/ Dumitru_Staniloae-Arhiereul_Ortodoxiei_ Romanesti_djvu.txt. [18] Michel Onfray, Contre-histoire de la philosophie. V. L’Eudémonisme social. trad. in Romaine de Dan Petrescu. Iaşi: Polirom, 2010, 49. [19] J. Warschauer, Problems of immanence: studies critical and constructive. The Project Gutenberg EBook, 2007, 12. [17]
Session 3. The notion of “Immanence” in the Philosophy and Theology
- 182 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
DIALOGO
2.2 (2015)
doi: 10.18638/dialogo.2015.2.2
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e Di a l ogue b et ween P h i l osophy a n d Th eol ogy
Table of Contents INTRODUCTION.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 IPS Teodosie Petrescu, PhD
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Acad. Alexandru SURDU
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Acad. Gheorghe VLADUTESCU
SECTION 1. “Transcendence” and “immanence” in the Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Patristic thinking A Mathematical View. Immanence or Transcendence? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 H Chris Ransford, PhD
Transcendence and Immanence of the Trinity in Barth and Lossky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Arvin M. Gouw, PhD
The name „Immanuel” = „God with us”, a proof of God’s immanence, according to the religious vision of the American author Ellen G. White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Assoc. Prof. Ioan-Gheorghe ROTARU, PhD
Transcendent and Immanent in the Orthodox Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 Fr. Prof. Gheorghe ISTODOR, PhD
The cross-motif in Sandu Tudor’s norm-poem. The relation between the immanence and transcendence within the religious imaginary in Sandu Tudor’s akathist-hymns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 Carmen CIORNEA
SECTION 2. The notion of “Transcendence” in Philosophy and Theology Transcendence of Theology, Philosophy and Science in Russian Cosmism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 1. Emanuel George OPREA, PhD
http://dialogo-conf.com
- 183 -
Tabel of Content
Supplement - March 2016
The concepts of “Transcendence” and “Immanence” in
CONFERENCES & JOURNAL
t h e D i al o gue be t we e n Phi losop hy and Theolog y 2. Cristiana OPREA, PhD 3. Alexandru OPREA, PhD
Transcendence as Objective Argument of the Existence of the Personal God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 Iacob COMAN, PhD
Transcendence and Revelation: from Phenomenology to Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Nicolae Turcan, PhD, ThD
Language, Definition and Transcendence in the Philosophy of Vedantic Non-Dualism. Landmarks for an Aphophatic Knowledge of the Ultimate Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Lect. Ioan DURA, PhD
Transcendence and Transcending in the Theology of Father Dumitru Staniloae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Fr. Lect. Grigore Dinu Moș, PhD
The Transcendence in Lucian Blaga’s Philosophical Thinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Fr. Lect. Stelian Manolache, PhD
SECTION 3. The notion of “Immanence” in Philosophy and Theology The philosophic paradigm as basis for early Christian doctrine of God’s immanence . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Fr. Lect. Cosmin Tudor CIOCAN, PhD
Perspectives on the Logos’ immanence in Creation : „He came to his own (eis ta idia, in propria), and his own (hoi idioi, sui) received him not” (Jn1:11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Fr. assoc. prof. Nicolae Moșoiu, PhD
Representations of God in Icons. Immanence and Transcendence in Christian Art. . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 Fr. Lect. Iulian ISBĂȘOIU, PhD
God’s immanency in Abraham’s response to revelation: from providence to omnipresence. . . . . . . . 174 Fr. Lect. Cosmin Tudor CIOCAN, PhD
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 183
Tabel of Content
- 184 -
http://dialogo-conf.com
This page was intentionally left blank
DIALOGO JOURNAL eISSN: 2393-1744, cdISSN: 2392-9928, printISSN: 2457-9297
ISSN-L 2392 – 9928
Proceedings of the Conference on the Dialogue between Science and Theology Volume 2 Issue 2 The concepts of “transcendence” and “immanence” in philosophy and theology. Dialogo conf 2016 TIPT ISBN 978-80-554-1208-5 March 3. 2016 - Constanta, Romania