Conditioned baggage that prevents the Christophanic Experience...
Intellectually, I find it hard at times to wrap my mind or heart around the shades of meaning in some of Panikkar's statements, such as, "I am not saying that Christ is the fullness of life but that this fullness, effective since the beginning, is one that the Christian tradition calls Jesus the Christ," to a seeming contradictory quote, "“For in him the whole fullness of divinity dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9);" and his note: "[3] It is sadly significant that the phrase “the body of Christ” (Col 2:17) has disappeared in numerous translations", etc. There are these tensions in Panikkar between not rejecting traditional christology to what seems to be a rejection of it.
Perhaps, its incorrect to say it's an intellectual struggle. It's more of an emotional twinge, pain or knot stemming from the challenge "against" my own rootedness in traditional Christianity; and the stretching I feel as Panikkar is trying to tease, coax, or even at times aggressively expand my boundaries and vision. His challenge is:
"it is the task of the third Christian millennium to transcend abrahamic monotheism without damaging the legitimacy and validity of monotheistic religions. This task, initiated at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1:22), entails not a denial of the divine but an opening to the great intuition of the Trinity—the meeting point of human traditions."
Perhaps if we, if I, can separate the cultural, ecclesiastical or otherwise conditioned baggage by which I philosophically interpret "Christ" from the "desire for fullness and life, for happiness and the infinite, for truth and beauty that goes beyond religious and cultural contingencies,' then can discover that more important christophanic experience of Christ. As Panikkar says,
"What remains is Christ: real symbol of divinization—that is the Fullness of Man. (Some would prefer that I say “symbol of human Fullness,” but this would not be correct; the fullness of Man is more than a human fullness. The complete Man is Man divinized; that unique being, athirst for the infinite, is not himself until he reaches his destiny.) Man is more than his “human” nature."
As St Paul Prays in Ephesians:
that we may be filled with the "utter fullness of God" (3.19) and
that we may "all reach the unity in faith...and form the perfect man, fully mature with the fullness of Christ himself" (4.13).
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
The Deepening Experience of Christophany and the Native American Flute
In the process of being challenged and stretched by Panikkar's christophanic vision, I take some comfort in his statement that he proposes "a deepening of classical christology." It's not a rejection of 2,000 years of Christian experience or thought but a "deepening." Rather than condensing Christ into dogmatic statements carved in stone, it is the spirit of the law- of experiencing Christ that deepens us.
It seems, in my mind, to be similar to the difference between Biblical and Hermeneutical study and Lectio Divina. The former is important, providing grammatical, historical, cultural context and theological reflection. Lectio, however, fleshes out the bare skeleton, gives breath and comes to life. One enters into the experience not just read about it. It is in this "deepening" that I feel "the yearning for the fullness of life."
Panikkar has mentioned "The Fullness" several times so far and again here. It was a gnostic term used to refer to the spiritual beings or forces believed to intervene between humanity and God; and Paul uses this term in several places to refer to the "fullness of God" dwelling bodily in Christ.
Recently, after many years since falling in love with the sound of the Native American Indian flute, I ordered one for myself and started learning to play. Primitive and tribal flutes, like this one, are not played according to western musical theory, reading music, or learning notes and scales. It's a harmonic experience of playing according to what one feels. Although there is pentatonic, Diatonic and Chromatic scales, primitive cultures did not have a way to record music, so each song, though perhaps similar, is individualistic and new. The length of the flute determines the key. There are a few basic techniques of fingering, vibrato and breath control but once these are learned, anyone can begin to play with the sounds and play what one's likes or feels. And the Native American flute has a block and a groove cut into it to channel the air over the fipple hole where the air stream is split creating sound, so it splits the sound for you, unlike western style flutes which require you to learn difficult techniques of splitting sound with your lips and a reed. There is no real right or wrong way to play, except learning these few basic techniques. Just play what you feel. It's a kind of spiritual experience. Of course, I am still screeching alot but having lots of fun with it.
This seems akin to Christophany versus Christology. They both have their own special characteristics. But christology, like western music theory, requires years of study and practice; whereas, christophany, like the Native American Flute can be experienced, perhaps after learning some simple basic practices, like Centering Prayer. and the "deepening" naturally progresses as you play. It also seems that these two different approaches to music (western or harmonic) and spirituality (theological or christophanic) can be complimentary and deepen the experience of the other.
All I know is, I've tried to learn to play multiple instruments in my life (drums, guitar, bass guitar, piano, etc) but for many reasons I did not stick with it; and as I became more focused on ministry and the academic preparation for ordination, the less time I had for anything else. I missed out on time with my wife and children. Each diploma I worked so hard for, seemed empty after receiving it.
But in contemplative prayer, though sometimes it is difficult to make myself take the one seat of meditation and become my own monastery, I am experiencing a "deepening;" though sometimes, it only comes after a season of being painfully stretched beyond my comfort zones. and with all my screeching and missing notes, I am for the first time, loving my experience of learning to play an instrument. Of course, once in awhile, I hit a note a little too wrong, and my dog tries to bite the flute!
It seems, in my mind, to be similar to the difference between Biblical and Hermeneutical study and Lectio Divina. The former is important, providing grammatical, historical, cultural context and theological reflection. Lectio, however, fleshes out the bare skeleton, gives breath and comes to life. One enters into the experience not just read about it. It is in this "deepening" that I feel "the yearning for the fullness of life."
Panikkar has mentioned "The Fullness" several times so far and again here. It was a gnostic term used to refer to the spiritual beings or forces believed to intervene between humanity and God; and Paul uses this term in several places to refer to the "fullness of God" dwelling bodily in Christ.
Recently, after many years since falling in love with the sound of the Native American Indian flute, I ordered one for myself and started learning to play. Primitive and tribal flutes, like this one, are not played according to western musical theory, reading music, or learning notes and scales. It's a harmonic experience of playing according to what one feels. Although there is pentatonic, Diatonic and Chromatic scales, primitive cultures did not have a way to record music, so each song, though perhaps similar, is individualistic and new. The length of the flute determines the key. There are a few basic techniques of fingering, vibrato and breath control but once these are learned, anyone can begin to play with the sounds and play what one's likes or feels. And the Native American flute has a block and a groove cut into it to channel the air over the fipple hole where the air stream is split creating sound, so it splits the sound for you, unlike western style flutes which require you to learn difficult techniques of splitting sound with your lips and a reed. There is no real right or wrong way to play, except learning these few basic techniques. Just play what you feel. It's a kind of spiritual experience. Of course, I am still screeching alot but having lots of fun with it.
This seems akin to Christophany versus Christology. They both have their own special characteristics. But christology, like western music theory, requires years of study and practice; whereas, christophany, like the Native American Flute can be experienced, perhaps after learning some simple basic practices, like Centering Prayer. and the "deepening" naturally progresses as you play. It also seems that these two different approaches to music (western or harmonic) and spirituality (theological or christophanic) can be complimentary and deepen the experience of the other.
All I know is, I've tried to learn to play multiple instruments in my life (drums, guitar, bass guitar, piano, etc) but for many reasons I did not stick with it; and as I became more focused on ministry and the academic preparation for ordination, the less time I had for anything else. I missed out on time with my wife and children. Each diploma I worked so hard for, seemed empty after receiving it.
But in contemplative prayer, though sometimes it is difficult to make myself take the one seat of meditation and become my own monastery, I am experiencing a "deepening;" though sometimes, it only comes after a season of being painfully stretched beyond my comfort zones. and with all my screeching and missing notes, I am for the first time, loving my experience of learning to play an instrument. Of course, once in awhile, I hit a note a little too wrong, and my dog tries to bite the flute!
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Panikkar- Christ, My Istadevata
Most of the excerpt from Panikkar on the "I" and "Thou" is metaphysically esoteric, difficult to intellectually grasp; and the subtle mystical experience of transformative awareness or sapiential awakening I have been experiencing through CP of Paul's experience "when he confesses, “It is no longer I who live now, but Christ who lives in me!” (Gal 2:20)" is difficult to express in words. But I was deeply touched by Panikkar's statement,
“Yet, in moments of difficulty, suffering, and testing in my life, I was led spontaneously to invoke You, Father, Divinity – and even more frequently, Christ, my istadevata.”
I also found the glossary definition of "istadevata" in the back of the book helpful-
"Icon of the divine which best corresponds to every person's culture, idiosyncrasies, and circumstances; the concrete symbol through which we experience the ultimate mystery that many call "God."
And his footnote- "An istadevata is the most human way of carrying us close to this experience. We need to find the divine icon with which we can communicate."
Jesus The Christ is my istadevata; but I am discovering that The Christ and the experience of Christ within me (and others) is much bigger than the little portrait I have known.
"The you that I am (and not the me) is Christ’s dwelling in the deepest center of my being."
-Aidan+
“Yet, in moments of difficulty, suffering, and testing in my life, I was led spontaneously to invoke You, Father, Divinity – and even more frequently, Christ, my istadevata.”
I also found the glossary definition of "istadevata" in the back of the book helpful-
"Icon of the divine which best corresponds to every person's culture, idiosyncrasies, and circumstances; the concrete symbol through which we experience the ultimate mystery that many call "God."
And his footnote- "An istadevata is the most human way of carrying us close to this experience. We need to find the divine icon with which we can communicate."
Jesus The Christ is my istadevata; but I am discovering that The Christ and the experience of Christ within me (and others) is much bigger than the little portrait I have known.
"The you that I am (and not the me) is Christ’s dwelling in the deepest center of my being."
-Aidan+
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Panikkar- Phenomenological Tensions and Tangents
Pannikar's phenomenological tension between "having and being", advaitic relationship, where he cannot identify himself with either his body or his mind, leads to a profound realization of the truth of the experience of contingency wherein we can “discover the tangential touch between immanence and transcendence, where “I am the point of the tangent in which those two poles [World and God] meet: I stand in between,” is a lot to chew on.
According to the traditional Biblical story of the creation of humanity in the image and likeness of God; and our subsequent fall from that relationship, is the issue of sin (hamartia) and the need for repentance (metanoia). This of course has been convoluted through the centuries from Augustine's idea of Original Sin and Calvin's concept of Total Depravity; and has caused much pain and suffering in the Western tradition of Christianity, catholic or protestant. I think the Eastern Orthodox understanding is much closer to what Panikkar is trying to get at or at least my take on it.
According to Kyriakos C. Markides' book, "Gifts of the Desert: The Forgotten Path of Christian Spirituality", can be summarized as the Threefold Way (or three identifiable stages) of the soul's journey toward union with God. I'll try to summarize from my notes from this book:
Hamatria or sin (which means to “miss the mark” or to be off your mark) does not mean the violation of some moral injunction as it is often taught in the west but means a life cut off from God. The Fall of Man in Adam does not mean that we’ve become totally depraved but that we’ve been wounded and broken and cut off from God. We've lost sight of God or our consciousness of direct union with God. This ignorance or forgetfulness is our fundamental “illness of the heart”. We were created in the Image and Likeness of God. We never lost that. All men, even though due to the "Adamic fall", have lost our consciousness of God, still have the very image of God within us. We all have "the Christ" within our very nature but because of the fall, we have been separated from conscious union with God.
Metanioa. Eventually/hopefully, the prodigal son realized his separation from His Father and decides to return, trusting in his Fathers compassion and forgiveness. This is when the soul goes through metanoia or repentance which is a radical transformation of the heart and mind. It doesn’t just mean to feel sorry for our sins (the loss of conscious union with the divine) and say a sinners prayer (which isn’t in the Bible anyway. lol). “To repent is to awaken from the deep sleep of ignorance (or unconsciousness), to rediscover the soul, to gain the meaning and purpose of our lives by responding to the incomparable love of the One who is not of this world.”
Catharsis- the systematic struggle to purify their hearts to make them vessels of the Holy Spirit. “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God”- Jesus. For as long as our hearts are hostage to worldly passions and desires we cannot really experience the fullness of divine grace. This Grace resides deep within us but in our blindness we are unaware of its presence.
Askesis is the methodology of purifying the heart so that it may begin to become aware of God’s presence deep within us. Askesis is a set of spiritual exercises or disciplines for overcoming egotism; and acquiring the grace of the Holy Spirit. (To buffet the body- St Paul). These methods of askesis includes- fastings, confession, holy communion, self-observation, alignment of thoughts and actions with Christ’s commandments, study, ceaseless prayer, meditation, etc, etc.
Also, this is the only level we can do anything about. We must work out our salvation with fear and trembling for God works in us. The following two stages are purely the work of Grace. This one is too but we are actively involved in it. The next two is strictly a work of grace.
[KENOSIS- However, I would insert here that Panikkar and Cynthia Bourgeault and Jesus Christ himself promote a different approach. Not askesis but Kenosis- the radical emptying of ourselves through non-concentrative methods like Centering Prayer].
Fotisis- means illumination. It’s the enlightenment of the soul, the awakening to what we truly are. One of the things Christ came to do was to mirror for us who we truly are. To experience the Uncreated Light of Tabor, i.e., The Taboric Light.
Theosis or Deification- the ultimate attainment of the human soul- the original split between the self and God is overcome and the soul experiences Divine Union with God- a return to the primordial state of man. Salvation is not so much about getting our ticket to heaven. Its about a restored consciousness of our oneness with God:
"In Christian spirituality, the soul upon deification maintains its autonomy within the oneness of God. The self does not get diluted into the All. What is annihilated is the sum total of egotistical passions and desires, not our uniqueness as persons created in the image of God for eternity." -Bishop Maximos (Anastasios) of Cyprus.
Anyway, this seems a much more holistic understanding of story of the creation of humanity in the image and likeness of the divine, our fall from consciousness of this divine union, and our restoration or re-awakening to consciousness of our union with God. Its already present but we've lost consciousness of it; but through such practices like Centering Prayer we are gradually led to a place of re-awakening to what we are by nature, or as Panikkar puts it, to discover" the tangential touch between immanence and transcendence, where “I am the point of the tangent in which those two poles [World and God] meet: I stand in between...”
Well, anyway, this has been my meditation on this passage from Pannikar. It seems much truer to my own experience of God, at least since began the contemplative journey under the teachings of Fr. Thomas keating. Before this, I grew up under the cloud of total depravity and the saved-lost-saved-lost concept or Arminius. I was damned by Calvin and was perpetually in fear of losing my salvation because of Arminius! I must have been"saved" a billion times during my childhood. But understanding that "salvation" in Christ is about awakening to the realization and consciousness of union with God, "I am the point of the tangent in which those two poles [World and God] meet: I stand in between" gives me great hope and liberation from the tyranny of fear and shame I once knew.
According to the traditional Biblical story of the creation of humanity in the image and likeness of God; and our subsequent fall from that relationship, is the issue of sin (hamartia) and the need for repentance (metanoia). This of course has been convoluted through the centuries from Augustine's idea of Original Sin and Calvin's concept of Total Depravity; and has caused much pain and suffering in the Western tradition of Christianity, catholic or protestant. I think the Eastern Orthodox understanding is much closer to what Panikkar is trying to get at or at least my take on it.
According to Kyriakos C. Markides' book, "Gifts of the Desert: The Forgotten Path of Christian Spirituality", can be summarized as the Threefold Way (or three identifiable stages) of the soul's journey toward union with God. I'll try to summarize from my notes from this book:
Hamatria or sin (which means to “miss the mark” or to be off your mark) does not mean the violation of some moral injunction as it is often taught in the west but means a life cut off from God. The Fall of Man in Adam does not mean that we’ve become totally depraved but that we’ve been wounded and broken and cut off from God. We've lost sight of God or our consciousness of direct union with God. This ignorance or forgetfulness is our fundamental “illness of the heart”. We were created in the Image and Likeness of God. We never lost that. All men, even though due to the "Adamic fall", have lost our consciousness of God, still have the very image of God within us. We all have "the Christ" within our very nature but because of the fall, we have been separated from conscious union with God.
Metanioa. Eventually/hopefully, the prodigal son realized his separation from His Father and decides to return, trusting in his Fathers compassion and forgiveness. This is when the soul goes through metanoia or repentance which is a radical transformation of the heart and mind. It doesn’t just mean to feel sorry for our sins (the loss of conscious union with the divine) and say a sinners prayer (which isn’t in the Bible anyway. lol). “To repent is to awaken from the deep sleep of ignorance (or unconsciousness), to rediscover the soul, to gain the meaning and purpose of our lives by responding to the incomparable love of the One who is not of this world.”
Catharsis- the systematic struggle to purify their hearts to make them vessels of the Holy Spirit. “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God”- Jesus. For as long as our hearts are hostage to worldly passions and desires we cannot really experience the fullness of divine grace. This Grace resides deep within us but in our blindness we are unaware of its presence.
Askesis is the methodology of purifying the heart so that it may begin to become aware of God’s presence deep within us. Askesis is a set of spiritual exercises or disciplines for overcoming egotism; and acquiring the grace of the Holy Spirit. (To buffet the body- St Paul). These methods of askesis includes- fastings, confession, holy communion, self-observation, alignment of thoughts and actions with Christ’s commandments, study, ceaseless prayer, meditation, etc, etc.
Also, this is the only level we can do anything about. We must work out our salvation with fear and trembling for God works in us. The following two stages are purely the work of Grace. This one is too but we are actively involved in it. The next two is strictly a work of grace.
[KENOSIS- However, I would insert here that Panikkar and Cynthia Bourgeault and Jesus Christ himself promote a different approach. Not askesis but Kenosis- the radical emptying of ourselves through non-concentrative methods like Centering Prayer].
Fotisis- means illumination. It’s the enlightenment of the soul, the awakening to what we truly are. One of the things Christ came to do was to mirror for us who we truly are. To experience the Uncreated Light of Tabor, i.e., The Taboric Light.
Theosis or Deification- the ultimate attainment of the human soul- the original split between the self and God is overcome and the soul experiences Divine Union with God- a return to the primordial state of man. Salvation is not so much about getting our ticket to heaven. Its about a restored consciousness of our oneness with God:
"In Christian spirituality, the soul upon deification maintains its autonomy within the oneness of God. The self does not get diluted into the All. What is annihilated is the sum total of egotistical passions and desires, not our uniqueness as persons created in the image of God for eternity." -Bishop Maximos (Anastasios) of Cyprus.
Anyway, this seems a much more holistic understanding of story of the creation of humanity in the image and likeness of the divine, our fall from consciousness of this divine union, and our restoration or re-awakening to consciousness of our union with God. Its already present but we've lost consciousness of it; but through such practices like Centering Prayer we are gradually led to a place of re-awakening to what we are by nature, or as Panikkar puts it, to discover" the tangential touch between immanence and transcendence, where “I am the point of the tangent in which those two poles [World and God] meet: I stand in between...”
Well, anyway, this has been my meditation on this passage from Pannikar. It seems much truer to my own experience of God, at least since began the contemplative journey under the teachings of Fr. Thomas keating. Before this, I grew up under the cloud of total depravity and the saved-lost-saved-lost concept or Arminius. I was damned by Calvin and was perpetually in fear of losing my salvation because of Arminius! I must have been"saved" a billion times during my childhood. But understanding that "salvation" in Christ is about awakening to the realization and consciousness of union with God, "I am the point of the tangent in which those two poles [World and God] meet: I stand in between" gives me great hope and liberation from the tyranny of fear and shame I once knew.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Panikkar- The Path, Milta-Manifestation
...it seems, just as there are so many different people and perspectives on just this little list who choose to come together on the basis of spirituality and even to encounter Christ in this myriad of different ways, is indicative of the "phania" or manifestation(s) of Christ that Pannikar is alluding to.
In the Greek/English tradition of the Bible, John 1.1, has been rendered, " In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Somehow, as Pannikar alludes to, it is the logos or word that has taken precedence in Christianity. Logos gives the impression of a single "word" being spoken to us from God; and this word has been reduced even to a book, the Bible, as THE Word of God. The Bible for many has become an idol and in our attempts to be true to the divine call (orthodoxy), we have ignored the mysticism of Jesus Christ; and even the mystical essence of Christ.
However, in the Aramaic translations of scripture from the Peshitta texts, the word in John 1.1 is not "logos" but "milta" which gives a broader range of meaning, such as, "‘Word’, "Sound", ‘Manifestation’, ‘Instance’ or ‘Substance, (I believe I even read somewhere it may be translated as "light"), etc., which may be rendered,
"In the beginning [of creation]
there was the Manifestation (milta);
And that Manifestation was with God;
and God was [the embodiment of] that Manifestation."
This idea of phania or milta as a divine emanation, manifestation, substance, reminds me of a yoga practice (I forget the name of it just now) where you gently cover your eyes, nose, lips, and ears with your fingers and thumbs, and listen and feel the interior hum within ourselves. Its kind of like listening to the sound of the ocean through a conch shell, except more of a hum. You can hear and feel this gentle hum or what the Hindu's call the "Aum" or "Om" which is the sound of God or sound of creation. "Om Nade Ishvara Vanamah" (Praise to God's Sound of Creation. Alleluia!). When they chant the "Aum" it vibrates up and down the three resonance chambers of the body (head, chest, and abdomen), it begins and ends with "Aum", from birth to death. It's about resonance and vibration. All of energy, even light vibrates (think of waves, etc.). There is something to be said here about the Yoga of Sound or in the Christian tradition, the spirituality of sound, such a chanting. Cynthia Bourgeault alludes to this in some of her books, especially the one on chanting the psalms.
Perhap the Path of Phania is simply about this Divine Manifestation, The Christ, and our becoming in tune with the divine resonance. As Panikkar says, its about experience- Christ's Experience of th Divine, Our Experience of Christ, and Our Experience of the mystical:
"One can concentrate on the individual (historical) Jesus and come to the conclusion that “he is the Way,” or on the person of Jesus and exclaim, “You are the Truth,” or go still deeper into the adhyatmic level and discover the Christ and realize that “You are the Life.” The third is the mystical experience that we have to appropriate if we wish to experience what Jesus experienced, namely, the reality of the Christ".
In the Greek/English tradition of the Bible, John 1.1, has been rendered, " In the beginning was the Word (logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Somehow, as Pannikar alludes to, it is the logos or word that has taken precedence in Christianity. Logos gives the impression of a single "word" being spoken to us from God; and this word has been reduced even to a book, the Bible, as THE Word of God. The Bible for many has become an idol and in our attempts to be true to the divine call (orthodoxy), we have ignored the mysticism of Jesus Christ; and even the mystical essence of Christ.
However, in the Aramaic translations of scripture from the Peshitta texts, the word in John 1.1 is not "logos" but "milta" which gives a broader range of meaning, such as, "‘Word’, "Sound", ‘Manifestation’, ‘Instance’ or ‘Substance, (I believe I even read somewhere it may be translated as "light"), etc., which may be rendered,
"In the beginning [of creation]
there was the Manifestation (milta);
And that Manifestation was with God;
and God was [the embodiment of] that Manifestation."
This idea of phania or milta as a divine emanation, manifestation, substance, reminds me of a yoga practice (I forget the name of it just now) where you gently cover your eyes, nose, lips, and ears with your fingers and thumbs, and listen and feel the interior hum within ourselves. Its kind of like listening to the sound of the ocean through a conch shell, except more of a hum. You can hear and feel this gentle hum or what the Hindu's call the "Aum" or "Om" which is the sound of God or sound of creation. "Om Nade Ishvara Vanamah" (Praise to God's Sound of Creation. Alleluia!). When they chant the "Aum" it vibrates up and down the three resonance chambers of the body (head, chest, and abdomen), it begins and ends with "Aum", from birth to death. It's about resonance and vibration. All of energy, even light vibrates (think of waves, etc.). There is something to be said here about the Yoga of Sound or in the Christian tradition, the spirituality of sound, such a chanting. Cynthia Bourgeault alludes to this in some of her books, especially the one on chanting the psalms.
Perhap the Path of Phania is simply about this Divine Manifestation, The Christ, and our becoming in tune with the divine resonance. As Panikkar says, its about experience- Christ's Experience of th Divine, Our Experience of Christ, and Our Experience of the mystical:
"One can concentrate on the individual (historical) Jesus and come to the conclusion that “he is the Way,” or on the person of Jesus and exclaim, “You are the Truth,” or go still deeper into the adhyatmic level and discover the Christ and realize that “You are the Life.” The third is the mystical experience that we have to appropriate if we wish to experience what Jesus experienced, namely, the reality of the Christ".
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Pannikar- Myth & Language
Anyway, as for the current reading from Pannikar, there are several thoughts going through my mind and heart, particularly with myth and mystical language.
Myth. In regard to Myth, I am reminded of C.S. Lewis' own struggle with myth and the Bible; and it seems relevant in regard to what it seems Pannikar is driving at. In a letter of October 18, 1931, Lewis writes,
"Now what Dyson and Tolkien showed me was this: that if I met the idea of sacrifice in a Pagan story I didn't mind it at all: again, that if I met the idea of a god sacrificing himself to himself . . . I like it very much and was mysteriously moved by it: again, that the idea of the dying and reviving god (Balder, Adonis, Bacchus) similarly moved me provided I met it anywhere except in the Gospels. The reason was that in Pagan stories I was prepared to feel the myth as profound and suggestive of meanings beyond my grasp even tho' I could not say in cold prose 'what it meant'.
Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God's myth where the others are men's myth: i.e. the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call 'real things'. Therefore it is true, not in the sense of being a 'description' of God (that no finite mind could take in) but in the sense of being the way in which God chooses to (or can) appear to our faculties. The 'doctrines' we get out of the true myths are of course less true: they are translations into our concepts and ideas of the wh. God has already expressed in a language more adequate, namely the actual incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. Does this amount to a belief in Christianity? At any rate I am now certain (a) That this Christian story is to be approached, in a sense, as I approach the other myths. (b) That it is the most important and full of meaning. I am also nearly certain that it really happened."
Thirteen years later, Lewis, in an essay called "Myth Became Fact" (1944) adds,
"The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens--at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle. I suspect that men have sometimes derived more spiritual sustenance from myths they did not believe than from the religion they professed. To be truly Christian we must both assent to the historical fact and also receive the myth (fact though it has become) with the same imaginative embrace which we accord to all myth. The one is hardly more necessary than the other."
This is something I have been struggling or working with in my own life, though in the reverse of Lewis, as I am trying to look at the mythical, archetypal and symbolic power of the Christian myth (fact though it may be). But the struggle is the same. How we approach such myths determine the lense of how we view the world and reality. "Myth for Panikkar is that through which you experience and understand and not that which you experience and understand. It is the universe of meaning in which one finds oneself; it is the horizon of one’s being and understanding." If we reduce myth, specifically the Christian myth, to mere creedal assents we often miss the transforming power of myth. Its the difference, again, between a Christology and a Christophany. However, as Pannikar later suggests, its not and either/or but a both/and. They are complemntary but alone we lose something in the process. "We must both assent to the historical fact and also receive the myth... with the same imaginative embrace which we accord to all myth. "
The Cultural Lense of Myth. Myth is the symbolic value through which we view or rather, "experience and understand" life and the world. However, it is necessary to discern "the myth that is operative in a particular culture." This is a very important point. Not only has most of the Christ event been reduced to creedal affirmations and mental assents, the mythic portrait of Christ that was fashioned in western culture has been filtered through the language and philosophical constructs of the Greco/Roman culture, society, language and ideas, especially, the Platonic and Aristotelian. However, as we try to enter into Inter-religious conversation with eastern cultures with different mythic constructs,we often run into problems. Rather, than trying to share a Christophanic experience with, say, Buddhists or Hindu's, we too often have tried to convert them, not only to a different religious perspective, but to the importation of a western cultural trappings. Western and Eastern culture and worldview are very different. It's like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. This was one of the points of Dom Bede Griffiths- that in order for us as Christian's to truly enter into Inter-religious Dialogue, the Christ myth must be shared and translated through the filter of eastern constructs not western/European civilization and Greco-Roman language and philosophy. Western thought tends toward the scientific Aristotelian categorizations which reduce an experience into all of its smallest parts. What is left is a Christology often devoid of the original exprience, instead of a Christophany that goes beyond it. And this is precisely, why Pannikar's idea of Christophany is powerful. The eastern mind is not as interested in, say, our theological constructs but would be more interested in how to experience the Christ myth themselves, if they're interested at all. Pannikar's Christophany brings both western intellect and eastern emphasis on experience together.
Perhaps a more practical way of illustrating this is the difference between Western (Roman) evangelical methods and early Celtic Christian Methods. In the Roman model, the particular portrait of the Christ myth was normally limited to proclaiming "The Gospel" within the boundaries of Roman culture and civilization; and belonging to the church community was contingent upon one's acceptance of this Gospel. It was a method of Believing before Belonging. The Celtic Church on the other hand, went beyond the boundaries of Roman culture and civilization to "pagan and barbarian" societies. They built their churches and monasteries near villages or social groups, learned their language and entered into a relationship with them. The "converts" belonged to the church before they ever believed. It was a method of Belonging before Believing.
This seems to me to be one of the power's of Pannikar's Christophany. It is sensitive to both the western mythical portrait of Christ and its subsequent Christology; but goes beyond it to the experience and sharing of that myth in a way that is Inter-religious, empowering and transformational, both personally and culturally. It realizes that the experience of Christ in larger than any single portrait; and that we can not only begin to discern the largeness of the Christ myth; but can enter into the portraits of Christ for ourself. We can experience Christ or have a Christ experience ourselves and not just read about. We can experience even the experience Christ experienced of Abba. It also helps us to be more sensitive to symbols of "emerging myth of our times."
I apologize if I have drifted too far afield from our readings. But these thoughts are symptomatic of some of my concerns for how to both experience and share the changing or enlarging portraits of Christ that I am experiencing, thru both my CP practice and the tapestry that is unfolding through the experience of being touched by the word and presence of such spiritual masters like Fr Keating and Raimon Pannikar. As the portraits change, our reasons and methods of sharing also change. If the sapiential awakening and recognization events I am and others are experiencing through them is so powerful, I can only imagine that the original experience of Christ was even more earth shattering. And these deep and overwhelming waters we are experiencing in Pannikar are there to take us beyond a mere Christology to the very experience of Christ and Abba, that we may ourselves be transformed and perhaps be mirrors ourselves of this experience for others.
Myth. In regard to Myth, I am reminded of C.S. Lewis' own struggle with myth and the Bible; and it seems relevant in regard to what it seems Pannikar is driving at. In a letter of October 18, 1931, Lewis writes,
"Now what Dyson and Tolkien showed me was this: that if I met the idea of sacrifice in a Pagan story I didn't mind it at all: again, that if I met the idea of a god sacrificing himself to himself . . . I like it very much and was mysteriously moved by it: again, that the idea of the dying and reviving god (Balder, Adonis, Bacchus) similarly moved me provided I met it anywhere except in the Gospels. The reason was that in Pagan stories I was prepared to feel the myth as profound and suggestive of meanings beyond my grasp even tho' I could not say in cold prose 'what it meant'.
Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God's myth where the others are men's myth: i.e. the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call 'real things'. Therefore it is true, not in the sense of being a 'description' of God (that no finite mind could take in) but in the sense of being the way in which God chooses to (or can) appear to our faculties. The 'doctrines' we get out of the true myths are of course less true: they are translations into our concepts and ideas of the wh. God has already expressed in a language more adequate, namely the actual incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. Does this amount to a belief in Christianity? At any rate I am now certain (a) That this Christian story is to be approached, in a sense, as I approach the other myths. (b) That it is the most important and full of meaning. I am also nearly certain that it really happened."
Thirteen years later, Lewis, in an essay called "Myth Became Fact" (1944) adds,
"The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens--at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle. I suspect that men have sometimes derived more spiritual sustenance from myths they did not believe than from the religion they professed. To be truly Christian we must both assent to the historical fact and also receive the myth (fact though it has become) with the same imaginative embrace which we accord to all myth. The one is hardly more necessary than the other."
This is something I have been struggling or working with in my own life, though in the reverse of Lewis, as I am trying to look at the mythical, archetypal and symbolic power of the Christian myth (fact though it may be). But the struggle is the same. How we approach such myths determine the lense of how we view the world and reality. "Myth for Panikkar is that through which you experience and understand and not that which you experience and understand. It is the universe of meaning in which one finds oneself; it is the horizon of one’s being and understanding." If we reduce myth, specifically the Christian myth, to mere creedal assents we often miss the transforming power of myth. Its the difference, again, between a Christology and a Christophany. However, as Pannikar later suggests, its not and either/or but a both/and. They are complemntary but alone we lose something in the process. "We must both assent to the historical fact and also receive the myth... with the same imaginative embrace which we accord to all myth. "
The Cultural Lense of Myth. Myth is the symbolic value through which we view or rather, "experience and understand" life and the world. However, it is necessary to discern "the myth that is operative in a particular culture." This is a very important point. Not only has most of the Christ event been reduced to creedal affirmations and mental assents, the mythic portrait of Christ that was fashioned in western culture has been filtered through the language and philosophical constructs of the Greco/Roman culture, society, language and ideas, especially, the Platonic and Aristotelian. However, as we try to enter into Inter-religious conversation with eastern cultures with different mythic constructs,we often run into problems. Rather, than trying to share a Christophanic experience with, say, Buddhists or Hindu's, we too often have tried to convert them, not only to a different religious perspective, but to the importation of a western cultural trappings. Western and Eastern culture and worldview are very different. It's like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. This was one of the points of Dom Bede Griffiths- that in order for us as Christian's to truly enter into Inter-religious Dialogue, the Christ myth must be shared and translated through the filter of eastern constructs not western/European civilization and Greco-Roman language and philosophy. Western thought tends toward the scientific Aristotelian categorizations which reduce an experience into all of its smallest parts. What is left is a Christology often devoid of the original exprience, instead of a Christophany that goes beyond it. And this is precisely, why Pannikar's idea of Christophany is powerful. The eastern mind is not as interested in, say, our theological constructs but would be more interested in how to experience the Christ myth themselves, if they're interested at all. Pannikar's Christophany brings both western intellect and eastern emphasis on experience together.
Perhaps a more practical way of illustrating this is the difference between Western (Roman) evangelical methods and early Celtic Christian Methods. In the Roman model, the particular portrait of the Christ myth was normally limited to proclaiming "The Gospel" within the boundaries of Roman culture and civilization; and belonging to the church community was contingent upon one's acceptance of this Gospel. It was a method of Believing before Belonging. The Celtic Church on the other hand, went beyond the boundaries of Roman culture and civilization to "pagan and barbarian" societies. They built their churches and monasteries near villages or social groups, learned their language and entered into a relationship with them. The "converts" belonged to the church before they ever believed. It was a method of Belonging before Believing.
This seems to me to be one of the power's of Pannikar's Christophany. It is sensitive to both the western mythical portrait of Christ and its subsequent Christology; but goes beyond it to the experience and sharing of that myth in a way that is Inter-religious, empowering and transformational, both personally and culturally. It realizes that the experience of Christ in larger than any single portrait; and that we can not only begin to discern the largeness of the Christ myth; but can enter into the portraits of Christ for ourself. We can experience Christ or have a Christ experience ourselves and not just read about. We can experience even the experience Christ experienced of Abba. It also helps us to be more sensitive to symbols of "emerging myth of our times."
I apologize if I have drifted too far afield from our readings. But these thoughts are symptomatic of some of my concerns for how to both experience and share the changing or enlarging portraits of Christ that I am experiencing, thru both my CP practice and the tapestry that is unfolding through the experience of being touched by the word and presence of such spiritual masters like Fr Keating and Raimon Pannikar. As the portraits change, our reasons and methods of sharing also change. If the sapiential awakening and recognization events I am and others are experiencing through them is so powerful, I can only imagine that the original experience of Christ was even more earth shattering. And these deep and overwhelming waters we are experiencing in Pannikar are there to take us beyond a mere Christology to the very experience of Christ and Abba, that we may ourselves be transformed and perhaps be mirrors ourselves of this experience for others.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Raimon Pannikar's- Christophany- The Fullness of Man
I have just started reading Raimon Pannikar's Christophany- The Fullness of Man, together with a group. here are my first thoughts...
We have only just begun our journey into Pannikar but already I feel we are swimming in deep waters. Awhile back I was reading a book by Dr. Craig T. Isaacs "Revelations & Possession: Distinguishing the Spiritual Experience from the Psychological", where he describes the experience many have of reading Carl Jung,
"Reading Jung has been described as diving in the ocean. Often one will read his work and believe they have understood it, only to be dragged back down deep in the ocean, struggle to breathe believing all is lost, only to surface and again find one’s bearings. So, too, Jung will be intelligible, then we will get lost, only to find a statement we can grab onto like a raft in the sea, and then hold onto it with tenacity for fear of being drowned again. For this reason Jung has often been misunderstood because his thought has only been taken in part. However, we must not take only a few statements he makes, hold on to them like life rafts and move only from them; rather, we should attempt to comprehend the whole that he is putting forth. Therefore, for both our understanding of this process of the development of consciousness, as well as to further expand upon the concept of objective spirit, it is necessary to pursue a greater understanding of spirit, especially as presented in Jung’s thought."
This quote about the experience of reading Jung seems quite appropriate here as we begin our journey into Pannikar's Christophany, perhaps even more so.
Due to many factors, in my personal life, family, marriage, ministry, and changes in polarity from my own spiritual practice of contemplative prayer and related studies, I have already been feeling this experience of having the floor of old ways of believing, belonging and being swept out from under my feet; or having the vessel of myself being wrecked against these waves of the ocean that seems to drag me down deep, only to resurface, gasping for breath and trying to find my bearings again. All the while, trying to hold onto a plank of flotsam and jetsam. Sometimes the plank I am holding onto seems to be my own spiritual practice or the writings of Keating, Griffiths, Bourgeault, etc., while at other times the experience of both my spiritual practice and reading authors of such deep thoughts seem to be the wave itself washing over me to destroy the old securities and consciousness.
Even now, in the beginning, in the Foreword to Christophany, we already meet deep waves of Pannikar's thought and can almost feel the palpable force of his being and presence as a manifestation of the very things he alludes to. He writes not only from his intellect but from his being. It pulls us down to depths, to meet him where he is. This is the difference between Christology and Christophany. The former is the making of dogmatic statements or moralizing's based on the life and sayings of Christ but usually misses the deeper meanings of Christ which lead to transformation of consciousness and being; whereas, Christophany presupposes that we cannot only experience Christ for ourselves but can also have the same experience Christ claimed to have with the mysterious being he called Abba.
Although I already feel I am being pulled down to unfamiliar depths, I also feel a kind of sapiential awakening and recognization. And I am becoming so much more grateful to have a plank such as the ---- list to hold onto as I plunge again and again into the deep ocean's of change and shifting polarities; especially now, as we are (or at least I am) entering what I already feel to be deep waters- a place where deep calls unto deep.
-Aidan+
We have only just begun our journey into Pannikar but already I feel we are swimming in deep waters. Awhile back I was reading a book by Dr. Craig T. Isaacs "Revelations & Possession: Distinguishing the Spiritual Experience from the Psychological", where he describes the experience many have of reading Carl Jung,
"Reading Jung has been described as diving in the ocean. Often one will read his work and believe they have understood it, only to be dragged back down deep in the ocean, struggle to breathe believing all is lost, only to surface and again find one’s bearings. So, too, Jung will be intelligible, then we will get lost, only to find a statement we can grab onto like a raft in the sea, and then hold onto it with tenacity for fear of being drowned again. For this reason Jung has often been misunderstood because his thought has only been taken in part. However, we must not take only a few statements he makes, hold on to them like life rafts and move only from them; rather, we should attempt to comprehend the whole that he is putting forth. Therefore, for both our understanding of this process of the development of consciousness, as well as to further expand upon the concept of objective spirit, it is necessary to pursue a greater understanding of spirit, especially as presented in Jung’s thought."
This quote about the experience of reading Jung seems quite appropriate here as we begin our journey into Pannikar's Christophany, perhaps even more so.
Due to many factors, in my personal life, family, marriage, ministry, and changes in polarity from my own spiritual practice of contemplative prayer and related studies, I have already been feeling this experience of having the floor of old ways of believing, belonging and being swept out from under my feet; or having the vessel of myself being wrecked against these waves of the ocean that seems to drag me down deep, only to resurface, gasping for breath and trying to find my bearings again. All the while, trying to hold onto a plank of flotsam and jetsam. Sometimes the plank I am holding onto seems to be my own spiritual practice or the writings of Keating, Griffiths, Bourgeault, etc., while at other times the experience of both my spiritual practice and reading authors of such deep thoughts seem to be the wave itself washing over me to destroy the old securities and consciousness.
Even now, in the beginning, in the Foreword to Christophany, we already meet deep waves of Pannikar's thought and can almost feel the palpable force of his being and presence as a manifestation of the very things he alludes to. He writes not only from his intellect but from his being. It pulls us down to depths, to meet him where he is. This is the difference between Christology and Christophany. The former is the making of dogmatic statements or moralizing's based on the life and sayings of Christ but usually misses the deeper meanings of Christ which lead to transformation of consciousness and being; whereas, Christophany presupposes that we cannot only experience Christ for ourselves but can also have the same experience Christ claimed to have with the mysterious being he called Abba.
Although I already feel I am being pulled down to unfamiliar depths, I also feel a kind of sapiential awakening and recognization. And I am becoming so much more grateful to have a plank such as the ---- list to hold onto as I plunge again and again into the deep ocean's of change and shifting polarities; especially now, as we are (or at least I am) entering what I already feel to be deep waters- a place where deep calls unto deep.
-Aidan+
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The Wisdom Jesus
I am currently reading The Wisdom Jesus-Transforming Heart and Mind--A New Perspective on Christ and His Message by Cynthia Bourgeault
"If you put aside what you think you know about Jesus and approach the Gospels as though for the first time, something remarkable happens: Jesus emerges as a teacher of radical wisdom and compassion, whose aim is nothing less than the transformation of human consciousness."
http://www.shambhala.com/html/catalog/items/author/856.cfm
"If you put aside what you think you know about Jesus and approach the Gospels as though for the first time, something remarkable happens: Jesus emerges as a teacher of radical wisdom and compassion, whose aim is nothing less than the transformation of human consciousness."
http://www.shambhala.com/html/catalog/items/author/856.cfm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
